similar to: some feedbacks seen on btrfs

Hallo, linux-btrfs, First I create an array of 2 disks with mkfs.btrfs -d raid0 -m raid1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdd1 and mount it at /srv/MM. Then I fill it with about 1,6 TByte. And then I add /dev/sde1 via btrfs device add /dev/sde1 /srv/MM btrfs filesystem balance /srv/MM (it run about 20 hours) Then I work on it, copy some new files, delete some old files - all works well. Only df

I have a 4 device volume with raid5 - trying to remove one of the devices (plenty of free space) and I get an almost immediate segfault. Scrub shows no errors, repair show space cache invalid but nothing else (I remounted with clear cache to be safe). Lots of corrupt on bdev (for 3 out of 4 drives), but I have no file access issues that I know of. Thanks! Output below:

Hi! I recently tried to mount a filesystem in RAID1 mode using loopback devices. I followed the instructions at [1]. Here''s exactly what I''ve done: $ dd if=/dev/zero of=raid1_0.img bs=1M count=500 $ dd if=/dev/zero of=raid1_1.img bs=1M count=500 $ mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid1 raid1_0.img raid1_1.img $ losetup /dev/loop0 raid1_0.img $ losetup /dev/loop1 raid1_1.img $ mount -t

Did something break.. ? we are not reporting raid type after balance. ----------- # btrfs fi df /btrfs Data, RAID0: total=2.00GB, used=2.03MB Data: total=8.00MB, used=0.00 System, RAID0: total=16.00MB, used=4.00KB System: total=4.00MB, used=0.00 Metadata, RAID0: total=2.00GB, used=216.00KB Metadata: total=8.00MB, used=4.00KB # btrfs bal /btrfs Done, had to relocate 5 out of 5 chunks # btrfs fi

Hi. I am seriously considering employing btrfs on my systems, particularly due to some space-saving features that it has (namely, deduplication and compression). In fact, I was (a few moments ago) trying to back up some of my systems to a 2TB HD that has an ext4 filesystem and, in the middle of the last one, I got the error message that the backup HD was full. Given that what I backup there are

Hi, I''m getting an error when trying to delete a device from a raid1 (data and metadata mirrored). > btrfs filesystem show failed to read /dev/sr0 Label: none uuid: 78b5162b-489e-4de1-a989-a47b91adef50 Total devices 2 FS bytes used 107.64GB devid 2 size 149.05GB used 109.01GB path /dev/sdh1 devid 1 size 156.81GB used 109.03GB path /dev/sdb6 Btrfs v0.20-rc1 >

How can I verify the read speed of a btrfs raid0 pair in archlinux.? I assume raid0 means striped activity in a paralleled mode at lease similar to raid0 in mdadm. How can I measure the btrfs read speed since it is copy-on-write which is not the norm in mdadm raid0.? Perhaps I cannot use the same approach in btrfs to determine the performance. Secondly, I see a methodology for raid10 using

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, this is a new attempt to improve the output of the command "btrfs fi df". The previous attempt received a good reception. However there was no a general consensus about the wording. Moreover I still didn''t understand how btrfs was using the disks. A my first attempt was to develop a new command which shows how the disks

Hi list, I am using kernel 3.9.0, btrfs-progs 0.20-rc1-253-g7854c8b. I have a three disk array of level single: # btrfs fi sh Label: none uuid: 2e905f8f-e525-4114-afa6-cce48f77b629 Total devices 3 FS bytes used 3.80TB devid 1 size 2.73TB used 2.25TB path /dev/sdd devid 2 size 2.73TB used 1.55TB path /dev/sdc devid 3 size 2.73TB used 0.00 path /dev/sdb

If there is no free space, the free space allocator will try to get space from the block group with the degenerated profile. For example, if there is no free space in the RAID1 block groups, the allocator will try to allocate space from the DUP block groups. And besides that, the space reservation has the similar behaviour: if there is no enough space in the space cache to reserve, it will reserve

Hi all, Sorry for the OT. I've got an IBM N3300-A10 NAS. It runs Data Ontap 7.2.5.1. The problem is, from the docs it says that it only supports either RAID-DP or RAID4. What I want to achieve is Max Storage Capacity, so I change it from RAID-DP to RAID4, but with RAID4, the maximum disk in a RAID Group decrease from 14 to 7. In the end, either using RAID-DP or RAID4, the capacity is the same.

Hiya, is there any recommendation out there to setup a btrfs FS on top of hardware or software raid5 or raid6 wrt stripe/stride alignment? From mkfs.btrfs, it doesn''t look like there''s much that can be adjusted that would help, and what I''m asking might not even make sense for btrfs but I thought I''d just ask. Thanks, Stephane -- To unsubscribe from this

Hello, I added a new disk into our RAID5 array, it looks like this: md2 : active raid5 sdd4[3] sde4[4] sda4[0] sdc4[2] sdb4[1] 3767274240 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [5/5] [UUUUU] # btrfs fi sh Label: none uuid: 5534d2e7-be31-49c7-8ab7-90c5ab8afe18 Total devices 1 FS bytes used 2.24TB devid 3 size 2.63TB used 2.63TB path /dev/md2 # mount ... /dev/md2 on /home type btrfs

Hello all: I have two machines with btrfs, that give me the "blocked for more than 120 seconds" message. After that I cannot write anything to disk, i am unable to unmount the btrfs filesystem and i can only reboot with sysrq-trigger. It always happens when i write many files with rsync over network. When i used 3.2rc6 it happened randomly on both machines after 50-500gb of writes.

Hallo, "never change a running system" ... For some months I run btrfs unter kernel 3.2.5 and 3.2.9, without problems. Yesterday I compiled kernel 3.3.4, and this morning I started the machine with this kernel. There may be some ugly problems. Copying something into the btrfs "directory" worked well for some files, and then I got error messages (I''ve not

I cannot verify it, but I think that even JBOD is propagated as a virtual device. If you create JBOD from 3 different disks, low level parameters may differ. And probably old firmware is the reason we used RAID-0 two or three years before. Thank you for the ideas. Kind regards Milo Dne 10.09.2020 v 16:15 Scott Q. napsal(a): > Actually there is, filesystems like ZFS/BTRFS prefer to see

The Wiki does not make it clear as to why adding a secondary device defaults to RAID1 metadata and RAID0 data. I bought two SSDs with the intention of doing a BTRFS RAID0 for my root. What is the difference between forcing RAID0 on metadata and data as opposed to the default behavior? Can anyone clarify that? Thank you for your time, Mario -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

While untar''ing an image to an sd card via a reader, I got the following bug. The system also has a btrfs root, and a whole swath of processes went into uninterruptable sleep. I was able to poke around via ssh and sysrq, and already had netconsole set up to capture the bug. Root fs is on /dev/sdi1, and /dev/sdj2 is the card reader which was the target of the untar. [29571.448889] sd

So I''m having a bit of trouble with one of my btrfs filesystems. It isn''t mounting after a power failure. I can''t get restore or btrfsck to run, even on backup supers. I''ve pasted some output below. My btrfs-progs below come from git this morning, running on linux 3.2.0. # mount /dev/md2 /media/test/ mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807905 Currently if you specify the blocksize parameter to mkfs-opts with a btrfs filesystem, then it fails, because mkfs.btrfs interprets the -b option as meaning filesystem size. The first patch fixes this by disallowing blocksize (it cannot be mapped meaningfully into btrfs parameters). The second patch adds the full /sbin/mkfs.btrfs utility to the