* Re: how long should btrfs fi balance take?
2013-09-03 8:21 how long should btrfs fi balance take? Russell Coker
@ 2013-09-03 15:38 ` Duncan
2013-09-04 5:27 ` Russell Coker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Duncan @ 2013-09-03 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
Russell Coker posted on Tue, 03 Sep 2013 18:21:35 +1000 as excerpted:
> # btrfs filesystem df /
> Data: total=100.57GB, used=77.00GB
> System, DUP: total=8.00MB, used=24.00KB
> System: total=4.00MB, used=0.00
> Metadata, DUP: total=3.50GB, used=2.35GB
> Metadata: total=8.00MB, used=0.00
>
> I've had btrfs filesystem balance running on a partition of my 120G
> Intel SSD for almost 7 hours.
> Should a balance take so long anyway? It's been mostly CPU bound an on
> E4600 CPU, that's a bit dated but it's still dual-core 64bit and
> whatever the btrfs utility has done to use 327 minutes of CPU time is
> probably wrong.
>
> Any suggestions on other information I should provide? I'm using
> 3.10.7 in Debian package linux-image-3.10-2-amd64 version 3.10.7-1 and
> version 0.19+20130705-1 of the btrfs-tools in Debian/Unstable.
My system's somewhat different, AMD fx6100 six-core, dual Corsair Neutron
SSDs mostly in btrfs raid1 mode, and I chose to partition my SSDs and run
multiple independent filesystems rather than putting all my data eggs in
one still under development btrfs filesystem basket, but it's fairly fast
SSD and the filesystem times can be scaled for the data involved, so this
should be relevant:
A timed balance on my /home takes roughly two minutes, with the balance
saying it relocated 16 out of 16 chunks. According to btrfs fi df /home:
Data, RAID1: total=13.00GB, used=11.52GB
System, RAID1: total=32.00MB, used=4.00KB
System: total=4.00MB, used=0.00
Metadata, RAID1: total=1.00GB, used=521.69MB
... and btrfs fi sh
Total devices 2 FS bytes used 12.03GB
devid 2 size 20.00GB used 14.03GB path /dev/sda6
devid 1 size 20.00GB used 14.04GB path /dev/sdb6
So it's a 20-gig filesystem with two copies, 13 gig data of which 11.5 is
used, 1 gig metadata just over half used, about 14 gig total usage.
14 gig relocated in ~2 minutes is ~7 gigs a minute.
You have about 104 gig of data and metadata combined, so to scale it
should take roughly 15 minutes. If your SSD is slow or you're only on
SATA2 instead of the SATA3 I'm on, that might double to half an hour, but
there's really no reason it should take over an hour on what I know of
your hardware.
Meanwhile, 3.11 was JUST released, and you're running 3.10.7, so you're
basically running a current kernel. Similarly, your btrfs tools are a
snapshot from early July so they're slightly behind but not bad.
So you're running into a bug.
I'm just a btrfs user but I follow the list, and I'd guess you might be
running into the chunk looping bug I saw a patch go by on the list for.
You might try the /just/ released 3.11 and see if it helps.
Meanwhile, I'm running a git kernel, 3.11-rc6-00072-g1f8b766 (3.11-series
but about two weeks old I guess), and in checking the balance time I
posted above, my first balance /home segfaulted, and shortly after that,
various apps quit responding. I rebooted using magic-srq to sync and
mount-readonly what was possible before the reboot (and / is mounted read-
only normally, so it wasn't ever in serious danger), and the balance
completed after the reboot. I then did another balance without issue --
it completed successfully, and I did a scrub to be sure -- no errors to
fix. So whatever triggered the balance segfault the first time around
appears to have disappeared along with the reboot.
I guess I don't know which is worse, a looping balance that eats CPU but
never completes, or a segfaulting balance that triggers unresponsive apps
and forces a semi-graceful reboot.
But either way, seven hours for about a hundred gig on what should be a
reasonably fast SSD, yes, there's definitely something wrong. I'd reboot
and see if the balance completes then and/or if you can run a balance in
reasonable time after the reboot.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread