From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33B87C2D0C0 for ; Sat, 21 Dec 2019 12:08:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EC2C222C2 for ; Sat, 21 Dec 2019 12:08:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726795AbfLUMII (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Dec 2019 07:08:08 -0500 Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196]:48763 "EHLO relay4-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726750AbfLUMIH (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Dec 2019 07:08:07 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 88.191.131.7 Received: from [192.168.1.155] (unknown [88.191.131.7]) (Authenticated sender: swami@petaramesh.org) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DD1F7E0003; Sat, 21 Dec 2019 12:08:04 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Kernel 5.4 - BTRFS FS shows full with about 600 GB Free ? To: Qu Wenruo , "'linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org'" References: <8bd55f28-2176-89f7-bd53-4992ccd53f42@petaramesh.org> <81dec38b-ec8e-382e-7dfe-cb331f418ffa@gmx.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Sw=c3=a2mi_Petaramesh?= Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 13:07:35 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <81dec38b-ec8e-382e-7dfe-cb331f418ffa@gmx.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Le 21/12/2019 à 13:00, Qu Wenruo a écrit : > A known regression introduced in v5.4. > > The new metadata over-commit behavior conflicts with an existing check > in btrfs_statfs(). > It is completely a runtime false behavior, and had*no* other bad effect. Many thanks to you for the quick explanation. I understand « no other bad effect » as « The FS will be OK again when this is fixed in the kernel, I can leave the disk in my drawer in the mean time » ? Well I find that makes several recent problematic regressions in BTRFS... 5.2... 5.4... I'm starting worrying about this development model. Something as serious as an « Enterprise grade filesystem » that has been under heavy development for about ten years is not supposed to be a toy that breaks every now and then and couple patches is it ? Or it would mean that it would ever stay a toy, not an enterprise-grade FS... Kind regards.