linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Waller <peter@scraperwiki.com>
To: Hugo Mills <hugo@carfax.org.uk>,
	Martin Steigerwald <Martin@lichtvoll.de>,
	Robert White <rwhite@pobox.com>,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Regular rebalancing should be unnecessary? (Was: Re: BTRFS free space handling still needs more work: Hangs again)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 11:04:32 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFChkqtY-3DHbiHzwPkbr1ahGqcki8iqfs-J_WVDmd7Vz6uc1g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFChkqsgJpA9N8K+CD=CnR-AXj1JeF89YvCvUBjG2C6uKTohWA@mail.gmail.com>

Apologies to those receiving this twice.

On 27 December 2014 at 09:30, Hugo Mills <hugo@carfax.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Now, since you're seeing lockups when the space on your disks is
>
> all allocated I'd say that's a bug. However, you're the *only* person
>
> who's reported this as a regular occurrence. Does this happen with all
> filesystems you have, or just this one?


I have experienced machine lockups on four separate cloud machines,
and reported it in a few venues. I think I even reported it on this
list in the past but I can't find that right now. Here's a bug report
to Ubuntu-Kernel:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1349711

Regularly rebalancing the machines and ensuring they have >10% free
disk (filesystem) and I don't experience this. Yet I read in this
thread I read that regular rebalancing shouldn't be necessary?

FWIW, trying to sell BTRFS to my colleagues and they view it as a
stupid filesystem "like the bad old windows days when you had to
regularly defragment". They then go on to say they have never
experienced machine lockups on EXT* (over a fairly significant length
of time).

So what can I tell them? Are we just hitting a bug which is likely to
get fixed, or must we regularly rebalance?

.. or is regularly rebalancing incorrect and actually regular machine
lockups are the expected behaviour? :-)

       reply	other threads:[~2015-01-09 11:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <CAFChkqsgJpA9N8K+CD=CnR-AXj1JeF89YvCvUBjG2C6uKTohWA@mail.gmail.com>
2015-01-09 11:04 ` Peter Waller [this message]
2015-01-09 11:25   ` Regular rebalancing should be unnecessary? (Was: Re: BTRFS free space handling still needs more work: Hangs again) Martin Steigerwald

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAFChkqtY-3DHbiHzwPkbr1ahGqcki8iqfs-J_WVDmd7Vz6uc1g@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=peter@scraperwiki.com \
    --cc=Martin@lichtvoll.de \
    --cc=hugo@carfax.org.uk \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rwhite@pobox.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).