From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bug in btrfs-debug-tree for two or more devices.
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:22:00 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <pan.2012.06.12.15.22.00@cox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 24763ECA27C26742BD79B0D67389CD0E071B3067@MTW02MBX05.mindtree.com
Santosh Hosamani posted on Tue, 12 Jun 2012 06:53:00 +0000 as excerpted:
> I am working on btrfs filesystem on how it manages the free space. [...]
> I hav run these tests on SLES11-sp2-x86 Kernel 3.0.13.0.27-default
Quick mostly boilerplate intro reply. I'm just a list regular following
development without getting too technical, so won't even a full answer.
1. As you didn't mention the wiki and based on a couple hints in your
mail including the kernel version, I'm guessing you haven't read up on
btrfs there yet.
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/
2. Btrfs is of course still experimental and under heavy development, so
while testing as you're doing is great, even more than with proven
filesystems, if you value your data, HAVE BACKUPS.
3. It follows from the "under heavy development" part but making it
explicit: for btrfs testers, a 3.0 kernel is OLD CODE with many bugs,
some critical, fixed since then, and many newly implemented features in
newer code. The standard STRONG recommendation is to run at least
current Linus stable, thus currently 3.4, if not the 3.5 rcs, and there's
pre-Linus-integration-branches as well, if you're brave. Additionally,
for the first time last kernel cycle (btrfs wasn't considered stable
enough to bother before that), a btrfs update was submitted to the stable
tree, so if you're staying with stable, do keep current with the stable
point releases, 3.3.x in that case but now of course 3.4.x.
4. Also recommended (and following from the "heavy development" bit),
btrfs testers should keep current with this list in ordered to know what
bugs are already being worked on and how testers might be affected.
Now a brief reply that may or may not explain the one-device/multi-device
difference you're seeing, I'm not deep enough into the technical side to
know for sure. As you'll be aware if you've read the wiki, btrfs
defaults to single data, duplicate metadata. On a single device, the two
separate metadata copies are of course stored on the same device, but
where btrfs has at least two devices to work with, it tries to keep the
two copies on separate devices. It may be that what you're seeing is the
lower-level implications of that difference.
Of course it's also possible that you've found a bug, but testing with a
current kernel would help in terms of knowing whether it's still an issue
or not. As I said, 3.0 is OLD for btrfs testers. (There is however
someone reporting a huge metadata imbalance with multi-device btrfs
filesystems and current code, IDR whether it's 3.4 or 3.5-rcs. Only a
few gigs, single digits, of data, but something like 85 gigs of metadata,
after adding a second device! Definitely looks like a bug there! That's
where keeping current with the list comes in, knowing about that sort of
current issue report with current code.)
--
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-12 15:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-12 6:53 Bug in btrfs-debug-tree for two or more devices Santosh Hosamani
2012-06-12 14:57 ` Randy Barlow
2012-06-13 8:43 ` Santosh Hosamani
2012-06-12 15:22 ` Duncan [this message]
2012-06-12 16:49 ` Arne Jansen
2012-06-13 4:39 ` Santosh Hosamani
2012-06-12 20:06 ` Hugo Mills
2012-06-13 8:40 ` Santosh Hosamani
2012-06-12 22:58 ` David Sterba
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=pan.2012.06.12.15.22.00@cox.net \
--to=1i5t5.duncan@cox.net \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).