From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vc0-f175.google.com ([209.85.220.175]:60742 "EHLO mail-vc0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751753AbaIZOSi convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Sep 2014 10:18:38 -0400 Received: by mail-vc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id hy4so1956811vcb.34 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 07:18:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 10:18:37 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 3.16 Managed to ENOSPC with <80% used From: Rich Freeman To: =?UTF-8?Q?Holger_Hoffst=C3=A4tte?= Cc: Btrfs BTRFS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: > That's why I mentioned adding a second device - that will immediately > allow cleanup with headroom. An additional 8GB tmpfs volume can works > wonders. > If you add a single 8GB tmpfs to a RAID1 btrfs array, is it safe to assume that you'll still always have a redundant copy of everything on a disk somewhere during the recovery? Would only a single tmpfs volume actually help in this case? I get a bit nervous about doing a cleanup that involves moving metadata to tmpfs of all places, since some kind of deadlock/etc could result in unrecoverable data loss. Doing the same thing with an actual hard drive would concern me less. -- Rich