Re: Some questions after devices addition to existing raid 1 btrfs filesystem

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

 



On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 01:45:29PM +0200, Laurent Humblet wrote:
> I have added 2x2Tb to my existing 2x2Tb raid 1 btrfs filesystem and
> then ran a balance:
> 
> # btrfs filesystem show
>         Total devices 4 FS bytes used 1.74TB
>         devid    3 size 1.82TB used 0.00 path /dev/sdd
>         devid    4 size 1.82TB used 0.00 path /dev/sde
>         devid    2 size 1.82TB used 1.75TB path /dev/sdc
>         devid    1 size 1.82TB used 1.75TB path /dev/sdb
> # btrfs filesystem balance btrfs_root/
> # btrfs filesystem show
>         Total devices 4 FS bytes used 1.74TB
>         devid    3 size 1.82TB used 892.00GB path /dev/sdd
>         devid    4 size 1.82TB used 892.00GB path /dev/sde
>         devid    2 size 1.82TB used 891.03GB path /dev/sdc
>         devid    1 size 1.82TB used 891.04GB path /dev/sdb
> 
> It took 59 hours to complete the balance.
> 
> I checked on a couple of files and all seems fine but I have some questions:
> - is there some kind of 'overall filesystem health/integrity check'
> that I should do on the filesystem now that the balance is done?

   See btrfs scrub start

> - also, I ran the command while some of the btrfs subvolumes were
> mounted (as well as the btrfs_root/ of course), does this impact on
> the balance job?

   No.

> - the mounted btrfs devices were mounted using -o
> space_cache,inode_cache but the btrfs_root/ was not, also, does this
> impact on the balance job?

   No.

> - about those options, a few months ago, I oftent had
> btrfs-cache-1/btrfs-endio-met processes taking some cpu/hd time.  I
> was advised to mount -o space_cache,inode_cache, which seems to have
> quiet the processes down.  Are those options still necessary now?

   No, once you've mounted with them once (and had the caches rebuilt)
they're not necessary to use any more.

> - as the job took 60+ hours but the CPU rarely went above 10%, the
> computer seemed still usable.  I left it do its job of course but
> could I have accessed or write anything on the subvolumes while the
> balance was running and if yes, would this have any impact on the
> filesystem?

   Absolutely, yes, you could have done. It would probably be slower
than normal to access the files while the balance is happening,
because the balance is using up I/O bandwidth, but other than that
there should be no impact.

   Hugo.

-- 
=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
  PGP key: 65E74AC0 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk
                        --- argc, argv, argh! ---                        

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: 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