Re: Is "btrfs balance start" truly asynchronous?

[Dmitry Katsubo <dma_k@mail.ru>]

On 2016-06-21 15:17, Graham Cobb wrote:
> On 21/06/16 12:51, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>> The scrub design works, but the whole state file thing has some rather
>> irritating side effects and other implications, and developed out of
>> requirements that aren't present for balance (it might be nice to check
>> how many chunks actually got balanced after the fact, but it's not
>> absolutely necessary).
> 
> Actually, that would be **really** useful.  I have been experimenting
> with cancelling balances after a certain time (as part of my
> "balance-slowly" script).  I have got it working, just using bash
> scripting, but it means my script does not know whether any work has
> actually been done by the balance run which was cancelled (if no work
> was done, but it timed out anyway, there is probably no point trying
> again with the same timeout later!).

Additionally it would be nice if balance/scrub reports the status via
/proc in human readable manner (similar to /proc/mdstat).

-- 
With best regards,
Dmitry