From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:51329 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752085AbcCKXjK (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Mar 2016 18:39:10 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aeWe2-0007tx-Pw for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 00:38:58 +0100 Received: from 87-127-16-100.static.enta.net ([87.127.16.100]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 00:38:58 +0100 Received: from 6401e46d by 87-127-16-100.static.enta.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 00:38:58 +0100 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: boris <6401e46d@opayq.com> Subject: Re: Snapshots slowing system Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 23:38:48 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <56E324AD.6010002@petezilla.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: I wondered whether you had elimated fragmentation, or any other known gotchas, as a cause? Out of curiosity, what is/was the utilisation of the disk? Were the snapshots read-only or read-write? Apropos Nada: quick shout out to Qu to wish him luck for the 4.6 merge. [Also, damn you autocorrection on my phone!]