On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Alistair Grant wrote:

On 20 February 2016 at 02:38, Jameson Pugh wrote:

...

I have a raid6 btrfs filesystem which I filled up, and added a disk to:

...

sudo btrfs fi show /dev/sdb Label: 'raid' uuid: 96c75e11-ab60-44b6-a450-4cd2831f86f0 Total devices 5 FS bytes used 917.77GiB devid 1 size 465.76GiB used 465.76GiB path /dev/sdb devid 2 size 465.76GiB used 465.76GiB path /dev/sdc devid 3 size 465.76GiB used 465.76GiB path /dev/sdd devid 4 size 931.51GiB used 465.76GiB path /dev/sde devid 5 size 1.82TiB used 0.00B path /dev/sdf

Despite having removed files, and added the new device, I still can't balance the filesystem:

...

Did you do it in that order? How about attempting to remove files after adding the new device.

As Guus said, removing a snapshot is more likely to help than removing files.

If you haven't already done so, I'd also suggest posting this to the linux-btrfs mailing list (see https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Btrfs_mailing_list)

Yes. I've tried removing files after adding the device. Unfortunately, there are no snapshots. I could try removing subvolumes. I'll try the btrfs list. Thanks, Jameson

Op 20 feb. 2016 16:06 schreef "Jameson Pugh" :

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Alistair Grant

wrote:

...

On 20 February 2016 at 02:38, Jameson Pugh wrote:

...

I have a raid6 btrfs filesystem which I filled up, and added a disk to:

[...]

...

If you haven't already done so, I'd also suggest posting this to the linux-btrfs mailing list (see https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Btrfs_mailing_list)

Yes. I've tried removing files after adding the device. Unfortunately, there are no snapshots. I could try removing subvolumes. I'll try the btrfs list.

Out of pure curiosity I took a quick look at the archives of that list and it looked quite promising (though i'm not sure if it was the same OP). If it works, could you post here also? I have a feeling you won't be the last person to run into this situation. Mvg, Guus Snijders

On 22 February 2016 at 17:22, Jameson wrote:

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 6:36 AM Guus Snijders wrote:

...

Op 20 feb. 2016 16:06 schreef "Jameson Pugh" :

...

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Alistair Grant

wrote:

...

...

On 20 February 2016 at 02:38, Jameson Pugh wrote:

...

I have a raid6 btrfs filesystem which I filled up, and added a disk

to: [...]

...

...

If you haven't already done so, I'd also suggest posting this to the linux-btrfs mailing list (see https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Btrfs_mailing_list)

Yes. I've tried removing files after adding the device. Unfortunately, there are no snapshots. I could try removing subvolumes. I'll try the btrfs list.

Out of pure curiosity I took a quick look at the archives of that list and it looked quite promising (though i'm not sure if it was the same OP).

If it works, could you post here also? I have a feeling you won't be the last person to run into this situation.

Removing subvolumes, and clobbering files didn't help, so I wound up starting over. The first thing I did was create a base subvolume, and then added a quota to it before creating subvolumes nested under it. Hopefully, this will help. Unfortunately, with the way btrfs reports free space, it will still be challenge to manage.

Thanks, Jameson

Hi! You should not use quotas on btrfs currently. It is known to cause significant performance issues on the long run (and potentially has many undiscovered bugs). If you wish I can dig up the relevant discussion on the btrfs mailing list for you. Regards, Garmine

On 22 February 2016 at 18:41, Jameson wrote:

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:28 AM Garmine 42 wrote:

...

On 22 February 2016 at 17:22, Jameson wrote:

...

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 6:36 AM Guus Snijders wrote:

...

Op 20 feb. 2016 16:06 schreef "Jameson Pugh" :

...

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Alistair Grant <

akgrant0710@gmail.com> wrote:

...

...

On 20 February 2016 at 02:38, Jameson Pugh

wrote:

...

>

You should not use quotas on btrfs currently. It is known to cause significant performance issues on the long run (and potentially has many undiscovered bugs). If you wish I can dig up the relevant discussion on the btrfs mailing list for you.

Well, without quotas, I can just expect my filesystem to fill up, again, without warning, and completely break. I think I might just have to buy some extra disks, and try out ZFS for myself.

Jameson

Maybe you could try to leave a few unpartitioned GBs after the btrfs partition(s). In case the FS fills up just assign the unpartitioned space to btrfs and maybe btrfs will be able to grow over it. Or die with -ENOSPC. But I have never tried this (instead I keep an eye on my disk utilization) so it might be a good idea to try this theory on some loopback devices first :) Regards, Garmine

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 05:41:18PM +0000, Jameson wrote:

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:28 AM Garmine 42 wrote:

...

You should not use quotas on btrfs currently. It is known to cause significant performance issues on the long run (and potentially has many undiscovered bugs). If you wish I can dig up the relevant discussion on the btrfs mailing list for you.

Yes, I heard this but can't find relevant bugreports. The kernel wiki says that quotas are fully supported, at least with simplest (raid1?) setups.

Well, without quotas, I can just expect my filesystem to fill up, again, without warning, and completely break. I think I might just have to buy some extra disks, and try out ZFS for myself.

See this: http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-05-04_Fixing-Btrfs-Filesystem-... Basically, when your btrfs is full, just create a loopback device, add it to the array, rebalance and then remove the device. This is what I had to do this Sunday :) Cheers, -- Leonid Isaev GPG fingerprints: DA92 034D B4A8 EC51 7EA6 20DF 9291 EE8A 043C B8C4 C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 06:48:17PM +0000, Jameson wrote:

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:43 PM Leonid Isaev wrote:

...

See this:

http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-05-04_Fixing-Btrfs-Filesystem-...

Basically, when your btrfs is full, just create a loopback device, add it to the array, rebalance and then remove the device. This is what I had to do this Sunday :)

I don't know if you saw the beginning of the thread, but what started this whole mess was I allowed a raid6 btrfs filesystem to fill up, and couldn't balance it even after adding a real disk. (I tried a loopback device first.)

Yeah, I already forgot the beginning of the thread :) Although, are you sure that 1 extra disk will be OK? For raid6 you may need to add more than one... HTH, -- Leonid Isaev GPG fingerprints: DA92 034D B4A8 EC51 7EA6 20DF 9291 EE8A 043C B8C4 C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 5:08 PM Guus Snijders wrote:

Op 22 feb. 2016 19:48 schreef "Jameson" :

...

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:43 PM Leonid Isaev <

leonid.isaev@jila.colorado.edu>

...

wrote:

...

See this:

...

...

Basically, when your btrfs is full, just create a loopback device, add

it

...

to the array, rebalance and then remove the device. This is what I had to do this Sunday :)

I don't know if you saw the beginning of the thread, but what started

http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-05-04_Fixing-Btrfs-Filesystem-... this

Looks like the same problem, the advise was there to (temporary) covert to raid 1, and then back to raid 6. All with the new disk included, of course.

I actually tried converting to single, but that failed also. Believe it or not, I actually filled it up, again. I miscalculated my quota, and filled it up while restoring. This time, I added the extra hdd, and a loopback device, and it worked! I just finished removing the loopback device, and it's still in business. I'm working to test my 1TB quota, now. Then, I need to pay a little more attention to the next quota. Thanks, Jameson