From: "Jakub Husák" <jakub@husak.pro>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Balancing raid5 after adding another disk does not move/use any data on it
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 21:52:14 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f3082d89-ee37-b421-0bb3-ff2e28cc31af@husak.pro> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <655523fa-1f32-3df2-bd10-29364447e3c9@knorrie.org>
This is a great tool Hans! This kind of overview should be a part of
btrfs-progs.
Mine looks currently like this, I have a few more days to go with
rebalancing :)
flags num_stripes physical virtual
----- ----------- -------- -------
DATA|RAID5 3 5.29TiB 3.53TiB
DATA|RAID5 4 980.00GiB 735.00GiB
SYSTEM|RAID1 2 128.00MiB 64.00MiB
METADATA|RAID1 2 314.00GiB 157.00GiB
Btw, I checked the other utils in your python-btrfs and it seems that
they are, sadly, not installed with simple pip install, which would be
great. Maybe it needs a few lines in setup.py (i'm not too familiar with
python packaging)?
On 16. 03. 19 20:51, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
> On 3/16/19 5:34 PM, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
>> On 3/16/19 7:07 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> This thread actually made me wonder - is there any guarantee (or even
>>> tentative promise) about RAID stripe width from btrfs at all? Is it
>>> possible that RAID5 degrades to mirror by itself due to unfortunate
>>> space distribution?
>> For RAID5, minimum is two disks. So yes, if you add two disks and don't
>> forcibly rewrite all your data, it will happily start adding two-disk
>> RAID5 block groups if the other disks are full.
> Attached an example that shows a list of used physical and virtual space
> ordered by chunk type (== block group flags) and also num_stripes (how
> many disks (or, dev extents)) are used. The btrfs-usage-report does not
> add this level of detail. (But maybe it would be interesting to add, but
> then I would add it into the btrfs.fs_usage code...)
>
> For the RAID56 with a big mess of different block groups with different
> "horizontal size" this will be more interesting than what it shows here
> as test:
>
> -# ./chunks_stripes_report.py /
> flags num_stripes physical virtual
> ----- ----------- -------- -------
> DATA 1 759.00GiB 759.00GiB
> SYSTEM|DUP 2 64.00MiB 32.00MiB
> METADATA|DUP 2 7.00GiB 3.50GiB
>
>
> Hans
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-17 20:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-13 22:11 Balancing raid5 after adding another disk does not move/use any data on it Jakub Husák
2019-03-14 14:59 ` Noah Massey
2019-03-14 15:08 ` Noah Massey
2019-03-15 18:01 ` Zygo Blaxell
2019-03-15 18:42 ` Jakub Husák
2019-03-15 18:59 ` Zygo Blaxell
2019-03-15 20:31 ` Hans van Kranenburg
2019-03-16 6:07 ` Andrei Borzenkov
2019-03-16 16:34 ` Hans van Kranenburg
2019-03-16 19:51 ` Hans van Kranenburg
2019-03-17 20:52 ` Jakub Husák [this message]
2019-03-17 22:53 ` Hans van Kranenburg
2019-03-18 19:54 ` Marc Joliet
2019-03-16 23:10 ` Zygo Blaxell
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-03-13 21:58 Jakub Husák
2019-03-14 21:31 ` Chris Murphy
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=f3082d89-ee37-b421-0bb3-ff2e28cc31af@husak.pro \
--to=jakub@husak.pro \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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