From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Norbert Scheibner" Subject: Freeing space over reboot question Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:42:32 +0100 Message-ID: <20120209174232.318280@gmx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Return-path: List-ID: Gl=C3=BCck Auf! I use now kernel 3.2. The filesystem was originally created under 2.6.3= 9 on 1 whole hdd, mounted with "noatime,nodiratime,inode_cache". I use = it for backups: rsync the whole system to a subvolume, snapshot it and = then delete some tempfiles in the snapshot, which are 90% of the full-b= ackup, all once a day. In figures: on this 1 TB hdd is the full-backup = with around 600 GiB and 10 to 20 snapshots with around 30 GiB each, all= together using around 700 GiB on disc. What I did: - I deleted (by accident) the big subvolume with the full-backup with "= btrfs subvolume delete" and recreated it with the same name with a snap= shot of the latest snapshot. - During the deletion of this big subvolume in background I changed the= kernel from 3.1 to 3.2 and did a reboot. - After that, the fs was operational, but the space was still used and = the next system-backup onto this fs failed with no space left errors. "= btrfs filesystem df" showed me that the fs used the whole hdd and that = there were only some kB free, which fits to the errors from rsync durin= g backup. So the used space of subvolume I deleted, was not freed. How to get the space back which should have been freed? A balance did not help. What worked was the deletion of that half-fille= d subvolume, which I use for the full backup. After that the space got = freed and the next balance run shrinked the fs again, so that it uses o= nly a part of the hdd. What I wonder is: Couldn't this be a little bit more user-friendly? If there is a background process running like this here, freeing some s= pace, should the umount take as long as the background process or shoul= d the background process stop immediately and restart after the next mo= unt (if possible, especially with a kernel change in between or the pos= sibility that the fs gets mounted read-only)? =2E.. Or is this all nonsense and it happened here because I rebooted a= nd after that used another kernel. My best wishes Norbert -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" = in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html