From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (unknown [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 476E01381FA for ; Sat, 17 May 2014 00:44:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B567E0B27; Sat, 17 May 2014 00:44:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA256 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C00DE0B1D for ; Sat, 17 May 2014 00:44:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from marcec ([77.22.138.176]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LiHc7-1X702s25yd-00nNQ0 for ; Sat, 17 May 2014 02:44:09 +0200 Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 02:44:03 +0200 From: Marc Joliet To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] experience thus far Message-ID: <20140517024403.17b401ca@marcec> In-Reply-To: <5376A871.7010609@iinet.net.au> References: <20140506121832.678ae781@marcec> <20140516221558.19e69a5b@marcec> <5376A871.7010609@iinet.net.au> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.3 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Sig_/Dx9dntiZjFR328k.OxJgNC9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:3kDHSj5Ufasuqdcaqyd+2w+eW+uyj/rbjjOs79QDkO/4awgXZNE ABSxjAeB2te1XEXd5NGxEL4UfPHMCbqeelZuCQ6nfO0QN8SFNBhhIfgm2abHBrzwJeVOm5s dY/16LAgnbxN54crqe34BwTxcf6Ugtpss/3WNf9y5BXPcxyXRa2cGBd2xHYjSE0WM1vDRaV VYkJ3bAIRzLKzHxaCvZBw== X-Archives-Salt: 8f174739-0688-4a7f-a3a2-23466eac519b X-Archives-Hash: 5ed6fe571637feaa6fb495dd6eb26032 --Sig_/Dx9dntiZjFR328k.OxJgNC9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am Sat, 17 May 2014 08:08:17 +0800 schrieb William Kenworthy : > On 17/05/14 04:15, Marc Joliet wrote: > > So, a week has passed since my conversion to btrfs. > >=20 > > So far there seem to have been no problems, my system has been running = as if > > nothing has changed :) . Which, as a friend pointed out, is how it shou= ld be. > >=20 > > I don't think there is anything particularly interesting to mention in = addition > > to what I already wrote. I can just say that I think the effort was wor= th it. > >=20 > > The one thing that I can tell from reading the past two weeks of the bt= rfs ML > > is that the 3.15 Linux kernel series will contain lots of bug fixes (for > > example in balancing, error handling, and send/receive), and that I wil= l want > > to use that sooner rather than later. Of course, the severity of the pr= oblems > > varies, and a lot are triggered under odd, or at least uncommon, circum= stances. > > Still, its worth paying attention to. > >=20 > > Also, a lot of problem reports I saw came from people using other volume > > management below btrfs, interestingly enough. > >=20 > > As for the future, I think I will wait a while, and get some experience= with > > btrfs first. I suspect that by the time btrfs supports swap files, it = will be > > stable enough that I would consider converting my SSD to also use btrfs > > anyway :) . Possibly before that, once I am fully convinced of btrfs' > > stability, I will also convert my backup drive and switch to using snap= shots > > and send/receive to perform backups. Perhaps somebody will have written= a > > backup solution on top of snapshots by then. > >=20 > > Have a nice weekend, > >=20 >=20 > Don't forget to have a maintenance program - run a scrub regularly once > a week or so - I have enough btrfs drives (22 qemu files, 4 WD Greens > att) to see about one or two scrub fixable errors a week with no obvious > cause, sometimes serious (in a critical file). My experience is that if > you ignore these errors they seem to increase over time resulting in a > crash and burn. Keep an eye on your logs as btrfs will list the errors > there as well ("grep -i btrfs /var/log/messages"). For the ones scrub > cant fix, delete the file and restore from backup. Errors that require > off-line fixing (btrfsck) are the ones where I have lost file systems - > though I have not seen this in the last 6 months. I did not forget about scrubbing, though so far I have run them manually (o= nce on Monday after a weekend away from the computer, and once tonight, both without error). Nevertheless, thanks for the reminder and extra info :) . BTW: I came across an interesting tool called dstat (indirectly while looki= ng for which package contained iostat, which was mentioned on the btrfs ML). W= ith "dstat -df", you can monitor the I/O of each individual drive. It's fun watching them be used in parallel :) . Anyway, with dstat I discovered that my drives have noticeably different throughput. Of course, I might have deduced that earlier: # btrfs scrub status -d /home=20 scrub status for 472c9290-3ff2-4096-9c47-0612d3a52cef scrub device /dev/sda (id 1) history scrub started at Sat May 17 00:23:33 2014 and finished after 2536 seconds total bytes scrubbed: 215.42GiB with 0 errors scrub device /dev/sdb (id 2) history scrub started at Sat May 17 00:23:33 2014 and finished after 3519 seconds total bytes scrubbed: 216.32GiB with 0 errors scrub device /dev/sdc (id 3) history scrub started at Sat May 17 00:23:33 2014 and finished after 2346 seconds total bytes scrubbed: 216.57GiB with 0 errors scrub device /dev/sdd (id 4) history scrub started at Sat May 17 00:23:33 2014 and finished after 2346 seconds total bytes scrubbed: 215.68GiB with 0 errors Boy, is sdb slow! I might replace it with sde, which is laying around as a spare for now, and make sdb the spare instead. > I am quite practised in restoring from backups because of btrfs :) Haha :) . --=20 Marc Joliet -- "People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup --Sig_/Dx9dntiZjFR328k.OxJgNC9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTdrDYAAoJEL/Q5oYsiHj0JoYP/3QPiC7o+BP2jaEpi2iGXgRG 1QHM2uGRCqSGhDhUnsa9079yo1poEyfN9RrENo0ceM/fNcZUcIOsLzyTMi0AzWN/ Hrf4LbRXx/gdhuikoB8ewjdVFpPAk8Crv/lAGnQszse1rxgH6HbNEbzhdUB3PkvV sk4bDGnJk3QJ16FKy2ms0imkH8M9qjPTdZ83xcvOks5QPqAFAJnycrWzl2+1CJ8t Brc/TrZQYGttHfyoEyGHsS+ZwKq0L2KfNnJ6mpPoCS7WSXfSKpPNB+OJmZh219QQ NsOw/vW1TyzkPxgMAUJO/B2zZA8vUbxqT3zYya7KpEcUPCVq1ih+U3eKzdlVlE0g 3K4pXt+dJ1tcNSIMurEEiKdXWSB8aFL4ACZIjQ03nWV3F+qQ+5LzD6tCqq6u7luV rp0QvEbWNatXchX5HZTSCpBVcP9QcWuIyKo/6yUl76tar4CDcq2inJiCqBX2YK7e St0AAUwNrUdtvtG7lcbO1ea2uppuK7kdQYf1VL+Yw7G7yIpUFtfVUKnlAkaJ9XMu Pyh5IP/Kf5eK4A2FIE15qhpniXrMIlL6VkJlcpAJzb8zgfyQPXdL80hA4lRD9/vz 3+MUww113i07J+PzWWDsfucovBBkwSx4sVs43WB381HleGADiSTe81QP9c/t1pdr KdlNGheHMp90bjYSdu6N =1K0Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/Dx9dntiZjFR328k.OxJgNC9--