From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from zaphod.cobb.me.uk ([213.138.97.131]:53938 "EHLO zaphod.cobb.me.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750783AbcFUNZ2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:25:28 -0400 Received: from black.home.cobb.me.uk (unknown [192.168.0.205]) by zaphod.cobb.me.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D65F9B8FE for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 14:17:38 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.0.211] (novatech.home.cobb.me.uk [192.168.0.211]) by black.home.cobb.me.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55ABC5FB8A for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 14:17:38 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: Is "btrfs balance start" truly asynchronous? To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: <20160621113339.GA3325@carfax.org.uk> <176a9733-ade2-d3a6-a9aa-1476d6afb3e1@gmail.com> From: Graham Cobb Message-ID: <57693E72.1090706@cobb.uk.net> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 14:17:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <176a9733-ade2-d3a6-a9aa-1476d6afb3e1@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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!). Graham