Re: Feature requests: online backup - defrag - change RAID level

General Zed
2019-09-13T17:20:43Z

Quoting "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@gmail.com>:

> On 2019-09-12 18:57, General Zed wrote:
>>
>> Quoting Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com>:
>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 3:34 PM General Zed <general-zed@zedlx.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quoting Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:18 PM <webmaster@zedlx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is normal and common for defrag operation to use some disk space
>>>>>> while it is running. I estimate that a reasonable limit would be to
>>>>>> use up to 1% of total partition size. So, if a partition size is 100
>>>>>> GB, the defrag can use 1 GB. Lets call this "defrag operation space".
>>>>>
>>>>> The simplest case of a file with no shared extents, the minimum free
>>>>> space should be set to the potential maximum rewrite of the file, i.e.
>>>>> 100% of the file size. Since Btrfs is COW, the entire operation must
>>>>> succeed or fail, no possibility of an ambiguous in between state, and
>>>>> this does apply to defragment.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if you're defragging a 10GiB file, you need 10GiB minimum free
>>>>> space to COW those extents to a new, mostly contiguous, set of exents,
>>>>
>>>> False.
>>>>
>>>> You can defragment just 1 GB of that file, and then just write out to
>>>> disk (in new extents) an entire new version of b-trees.
>>>> Of course, you don't really need to do all that, as usually only a
>>>> small part of the b-trees need to be updated.
>>>
>>> The `-l` option allows the user to choose a maximum amount to
>>> defragment. Setting up a default defragment behavior that has a
>>> variable outcome is not idempotent and probably not a good idea.
>>
>> We are talking about a future, imagined defrag. It has no -l option
>> yet, as we haven't discussed it yet.
>>
>>> As for kernel behavior, it presumably could defragment in portions,
>>> but it would have to completely update all affected metadata after
>>> each e.g. 1GiB section, translating into 10 separate rewrites of file
>>> metadata, all affected nodes, all the way up the tree to the super.
>>> There is no such thing as metadata overwrites in Btrfs. You're
>>> familiar with the wandering trees problem?
>>
>> No, but it doesn't matter.

> No, it does matter. Each time you update metadata, you have to
> update _the entire tree up to the tree root_. Even if you batch
> your updates, you still have to propagate the update all the way up
> to the root of the tree.

Yes, you have to update ALL the way up to the root of the tree, but
that is certainly not the ENTIRE b-tree. The "way up to the root" is
just a small tiny part of any large b-tree.

Therefore, an non-issue.

>> At worst, it just has to completely write-out "all metadata", all
>> the way up to the super. It needs to be done just once, because
>> what's the point of writing it 10 times over? Then, the super is
>> updated as the final commit.
>>
>> On my comouter the ENTIRE METADATA is 1 GB. That would be very
>> tolerable and doable.

> You sound like you're dealing with a desktop use case. It's not
> unusual for very large arrays (double digit TB or larger) to have
> metadata well into the hundreds of GB. Hell, I've got a 200GB
> volume with bunches of small files that's got almost 5GB of metadata
> space used.

I just mentioned this "full-metadata-writeout" as some kind of
imagined pathological case. This should never happen in a real defrag.
A real defrag always updates only a small part of the metadata.

So, still no problem.