I'm not 100% sure what is the correct answer. This is a clean install, just installed this weekend so the system itself has only been running with the 2.6.32-rc5 kernel, nothing older than that and the drive itself was completely new/clean. However for the install itself I've used SystemRescueCD which was using a 2.6.31.1 kernel. Hence the partitions have been formatted using the kernel 2.6.31.1 and that is also the kernel used during the install of the system. On 11/5/09, Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 10:37:10PM +0000, miyamoto moesasji wrote: >> 1) Running btrfs-vol -b indeed does free up some space on the >> completely full partition, but not much, just 1GB. However I can use >> it again, so that is very helpful. Many thanks Josef! >> >> For completeness: After running it on sda5 and sda3: >> Label: none uuid: a12ac0e9-cbea-4acf-bb26-181146940714 >> Total devices 1 FS bytes used 90.31MB >> devid 1 size 8.00GB used 6.42GB path /dev/sda5 >> >> Label: none uuid: 0a89100d-096d-4c67-b3c7-745c9b7c3dc5 >> Total devices 1 FS bytes used 10.60GB >> devid 1 size 20.00GB used 18.99GB path /dev/sda3 >> >> 2) However I would still like to point out that I find it very >> surprising to see the amount of space taken up by data+meta-data, >> which looks dangerous to me seeing how quickly I got into a disk full >> situation while normal df indicated no problem whatsoever (if on root >> I would basically have had a kernel panic). Is this really expected >> behavior or is this a known problem already so no need to >> trouble-shoot? >> > > Have you been using btrfs since 2.6.32-rc3 or have you used it for a while > now > and just recently gone to a 2.6.32-rc kernel? The reason I ask is because > we > did all sorts of things to try and make sure users didn't run out of space, > which included being overly agressive about making sure there was plenty of > metadata space. The enospc patches that went into 2.6.32-rc3 (i think, > somewhere in there) has made this much better and you shouldn't be seeing > this > bad of an imbalance towards metadata. So, if this fs was created pre > 2.6.32-rc3 then this is expected and unfortunate. If this fs was post that > time > then this is a problem and we need to figure out whats wrong. Thanks, > > Josef > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
