From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from vs2.lukas-pirl.de ([5.45.100.90]:52644 "EHLO pim.lukas-pirl.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934126AbbKTAGe (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Nov 2015 19:06:34 -0500 Subject: Re: anything wrong with `balance -dusage -musage` together? To: Hugo Mills References: <564E60FD.1010801@lukas-pirl.de> <20151119235931.GH24333@carfax.org.uk> Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Lukas Pirl Message-ID: <564E6404.7050100@lukas-pirl.de> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:06:28 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151119235931.GH24333@carfax.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/20/2015 12:59 PM, Hugo Mills wrote as excerpted: > Nothing actively wrong with that, no. It certainly won't break > anything. It's just rarely actually useful. The usual situation is > that you run out of one kind of storage before the other (data vs > metadata, that is), and you need to free up some allocation of one of > them so it can go to the other. This is typically too much data > allocation, and metadata has run out (so -d is more often used than > -m). > > For the "usual" case of running out of metadata allocation, you > don't actually need much space to reclaim, so -dlimit=X for small X is > an easier approach to use. Thanks Hugo for your quick reply. Alright, the look at https://github.com/kdave/btrfsmaintenance just made me think over regular balances using -*usage before one or the other space runs out (as suggested there). Best, Lukas