On 10.11.2017 22:51 Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Combined with evidence that "No space left on device" during balance can
>> lead to various file corruption (we've witnessed it with MySQL), I'd day
>> btrfs balance is a dangerous operation and decision to use it should be
>> considered very thoroughly.
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> On 2017-11-07 23:49, E V wrote:
>
>> Hmm, I used to see these phantom no space issues quite a bit on older
>> 4.x kernels, and haven't seen them since switching to space_cache=v2.
>> So it could be space cache
On 2017-11-07 23:49, E V wrote:
Hmm, I used to see these phantom no space issues quite a bit on older
4.x kernels, and haven't seen them since switching to space_cache=v2.
So it could be space cache corruption. You might try either clearing
you space cache, or mounting with nospace_cache, or
On 2017-10-31 23:18, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
On 2017-09-18 17:20, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
# df -h /var/lib/lxd
FWIW, standard (aka util-linux) df is effectively useless in a
situation
such as this, as it really doesn't give you the information you need
(it
can say you have lots of space
On 2017-10-31 23:18, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
On a different server, however, it failed badly:
# time btrfs balance start /srv
WARNING:
Full balance without filters requested. This operation is very
intense and takes potentially very long. It is recommended to
use the
On 2017-09-18 17:20, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
# df -h /var/lib/lxd
FWIW, standard (aka util-linux) df is effectively useless in a
situation
such as this, as it really doesn't give you the information you need
(it
can say you have lots of space available, but if btrfs has all of it
allocated
Tomasz Chmielewski posted on Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:27:09 +0900 as excerpted:
> And perhaps more important - can I assume that right now, with the
> latest stable kernel (4.13.2 right now), running "btrfs balance" is not
> safe and can lead to data corruption or loss?
>
>
> Consider the following
On 2017-09-18 22:44, Peter Becker wrote:
i'm not sure if it would help, but maybe you could try adding an 8GB
(or more) USB flash drive to the pool and try to start balance.
if it works out, you can throw him out of the pool after that.
I really can't, it's an "online server".
But I've
i'm not sure if it would help, but maybe you could try adding an 8GB
(or more) USB flash drive to the pool and try to start balance.
if it works out, you can throw him out of the pool after that.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to
On 2017-09-18 17:29, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Tomasz Chmielewski
wrote:
# df -h /var/lib/lxd
FWIW, standard (aka util-linux) df is effectively useless in a
situation
such as this, as it really doesn't give you the information you need
(it
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>>> # df -h /var/lib/lxd
>>>
>>> FWIW, standard (aka util-linux) df is effectively useless in a situation
>>> such as this, as it really doesn't give you the information you need (it
>>> can say you have lots of space
# df -h /var/lib/lxd
FWIW, standard (aka util-linux) df is effectively useless in a
situation
such as this, as it really doesn't give you the information you need
(it
can say you have lots of space available, but if btrfs has all of it
allocated into chunks, even if the chunks have space in
Tomasz Chmielewski posted on Mon, 18 Sep 2017 00:02:46 +0900 as excerpted:
> I'm trying to run balance on a 4.13.2 kernel without much luck:
>
> # time btrfs balance start -v /var/lib/lxd -dusage=5 -musage=5
> [works, but only 1 chunk balanced]
> # time btrfs balance start -v /var/lib/lxd
13 matches
Mail list logo