From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:57398 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756249AbbFPNNu (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:13:50 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Z4qgU-00039O-Tx for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:13:46 +0200 Received: from p4ff58081.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([79.245.128.129]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:13:46 +0200 Received: from holger.hoffstaette by p4ff58081.dip0.t-ipconnect.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:13:46 +0200 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Holger =?iso-8859-1?q?Hoffst=E4tte?= Subject: Automatic balance after mkfs? Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:13:40 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Forking from the other thread.. On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 12:25:45 +0000, Hugo Mills wrote: > 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) Since I had to explain this very same thing to a new btrfs-using friend just yesterday I wondered if it might not make sense for mkfs to issue a general balance after creating the fs? It should be simple enough (just issue the balance ioctl?) and not have any negative side effects. Just doing such a post-mkfs cleanup automatically would certainly reduce the number of times we have to explain the this. :) Any reasons why we couldn't/shouldn't do this? -h