Re: balance + ENOFS -> readonly filesystem

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 2020/6/7 下午6:00, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 07, 2020 at 10:34:52AM +0200, Michał Mirosław wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 07, 2020 at 03:35:36PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>> On 2020/6/7 下午1:12, Michał Mirosław wrote:
>>>> Dear btrfs developers,
>>>>
>>>> I just added a new disk to already almost full filesystem and tried to
>>>> enable raid1 for metadata (transcript below).
>>> May I ask for your per-disk usage?
>>>
>>> There is a known bug (but rare to hit) that completely unbalance disk
>>> usage can lead to unexpected ENOSPC (-28) error at certain critical code
>>> and cause the transaction abort you're hitting.
>>>
>>> If you have added a new disk to an almost full one, then I guess that
>>> would be the case...
>>
>> # btrfs filesystem usage .
>> Overall:
>>     Device size:                   1.82TiB
>>     Device allocated:            932.51GiB
>>     Device unallocated:          930.49GiB
>>     Device missing:                  0.00B
>>     Used:                        927.28GiB
>>     Free (estimated):            933.86GiB      (min: 468.62GiB)
>>     Data ratio:                       1.00
>>     Metadata ratio:                   2.00
>>     Global reserve:              512.00MiB      (used: 0.00B)
>>
>> Data,single: Size:928.47GiB, Used:925.10GiB
>>    /dev/mapper/btrfs1         927.47GiB
>>    /dev/mapper/btrfs2           1.00GiB
>>
>> Metadata,RAID1: Size:12.00MiB, Used:1.64MiB
>>    /dev/mapper/btrfs1          12.00MiB
>>    /dev/mapper/btrfs2          12.00MiB
>>
>> Metadata,DUP: Size:2.00GiB, Used:1.09GiB
>>    /dev/mapper/btrfs1           4.00GiB
>>
>> System,DUP: Size:8.00MiB, Used:144.00KiB
>>    /dev/mapper/btrfs1          16.00MiB
>>
>> Unallocated:
>>    /dev/mapper/btrfs1           1.02MiB
>>    /dev/mapper/btrfs2         930.49GiB
>>
>>>> The operation failed and
>>>> left the filesystem in readonly state. Is this expected?
>>>
>>> Definitely not.
>>>
>>> If your disk layout fits my assumption, then the following patchset is
>>> worth trying:
>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-btrfs/list/?series=297005
>> I'll give it a try.
> 
> The series doesn't apply on 5.6.x nor 5.7.x. :(

It's based on current David's misc-next branch:
https://github.com/kdave/btrfs-devel/tree/misc-next

Thanks,
Qu

> 
> Best Regards,
> Michał Mirosław
> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux