From: Vincent Olivier <vincent@up4.com>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RAID10 Balancing Request for Comments and Advices
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:34:29 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <61CBE6C4-0D06-4F16-B522-4DBB756FBC31@up4.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150616122545.GI9850@carfax.org.uk>
>
> On Jun 16, 2015, at 8:25 AM, Hugo Mills <hugo@carfax.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 08:09:17AM -0400, Vincent Olivier wrote:
>>
>> "btrfs filesystem df” gives :
>>
>>
>> Data, RAID10: total=7.08TiB, used=7.02TiB
>> Data, single: total=8.00MiB, used=0.00B
>> System, RAID10: total=7.88MiB, used=656.00KiB
>> System, single: total=4.00MiB, used=0.00B
>> Metadata, RAID10: total=9.19GiB, used=7.56GiB
>> Metadata, single: total=8.00MiB, used=0.00B
>> GlobalReserve, single: total=512.00MiB, used=0.00B
>
>> My first question is this : is it normal to have “single” blocks ?
>> Why not only RAID10? I don’t remember the exact mkfs options I used
>> but I certainly didn’t ask for “single” so this is unexpected.
>
> Yes. It's an artefact of the way that mkfs works. If you run a
> balance on those chunks, they'll go away. (btrfs balance start
> -dusage=0 -musage=0 /mountpoint)
Thanks! I did and it did go away, except for the "GlobalReserve, single: total=512.00MiB, used=0.00B”. But I suppose this is a permanent fixture, right?
>
>> My second question is : what is the best device add / balance sequence to use if I want to add 2 more disks to this RAID10 volume? Also is a balance necessary at all since I’m adding a pair?
>
> Add both devices first, then balance.
>
> For a RAID-1 filesystem, adding two devices wouldn't need a balance
> to get full usage out of the new devices. However, you've got RAID-10,
> so the most you'd be able to get on the FS without a balance is four
> times the remaining space on one of the existing disks.
>
> The chunk allocator for RAID-10 will allocate as many chunks as it
> can in an even number across all the devices, omitting the device with
> the smallest free space if there's an odd number of devices. It must
> have space on at least four devices, so adding two devices means that
> it'll have to have free space on at least two of the existing ones
> (and will try to use all of them).
>
> So yes, unless you're adding four devices, a rebalance is required
> here.
It is perfectly clear and logical that 1+0 works on four devices at a time.
>> My third question is: given that this file system is an offline
>> backup for another RAID0 volume with SMB sharing, what is the best
>> maintenance schedule as long as it is offline? For now, I only have
>> a weekly cron scrub now, but I think that the priority is to have it
>> balanced after a send-receive or rsync to optimize storage space
>> availability (over performance). Is there a “light” balancing method
>> recommended in this case?
>
> You don't need to balance after send/receive or rsync. If you find
> that you have lots of data space allocated but not used (the first
> line in btrfs fi df, above), *and* metadata close to usage (within,
> say, 700 MiB), *and* no unallocated space (btrfs fi show), then it's
> worth running a filtered balance with -dlimit=3 or some similar small
> value to free up some space that the metadata can expand into. Other
> than that, it's pretty much entirely pointless.
Ok thanks. Is there a btrfs-utils way of automating the "if less than 1Gb free do balance -dlimit=3” ?
> For maintenance, I would suggest running a scrub regularly, to
> check for various forms of bitrot. Typical frequencies for a scrub
> are once a week or once a month -- opinions vary (as do runtimes).
Yes. I cronned it weekly for now. Takes about 5 hours. Is it automatically corrected on RAID10 since a copy of it exist within the filesystem ? What happens for RAID0 ?
Thanks!
V
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-16 13:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-16 12:09 RAID10 Balancing Request for Comments and Advices Vincent Olivier
2015-06-16 12:25 ` Hugo Mills
2015-06-16 13:34 ` Vincent Olivier [this message]
2015-06-16 23:58 ` Duncan
2015-06-17 0:14 ` Chris Murphy
2015-06-17 13:13 ` Vincent Olivier
2015-06-17 13:27 ` Hugo Mills
2015-06-17 13:29 ` Vincent Olivier
2015-06-18 4:37 ` Duncan
2015-06-17 13:46 ` Vincent Olivier
2015-06-18 8:00 ` Duncan
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=61CBE6C4-0D06-4F16-B522-4DBB756FBC31@up4.com \
--to=vincent@up4.com \
--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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.