* Add big device, remove small device, read-only
@ 2016-01-01 11:47 Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-01 16:39 ` Duncan
2016-01-01 20:07 ` Chris Murphy
0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Rasmus Abrahamsen @ 2016-01-01 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
Happy New Year!
I have a raid with a 1TB, .5TB, 1.5TB and recently added a 4TB and want to remove the 1.5TB. When saying btrfs dev delete it turned into readonly. I am on 4.2.5-1-ARCH and btrfs-progs v4.3.1 what can I do?
On top of that, my linux is on this same raid, so perhaps btrfs is writing some temp files in the filesystem but cannot?
. /dev/sdc1 on / type btrfs (ro,relatime,space_cache,subvolid=1187,subvol=/linux)
<zetok> Ralle: did you do balance before removing?
I did not, but I have experience with it balancing itself upon doing so.
Upon removing a device, that is.
I am just not sure how to proceed now that everything is read-only.
<zetok> I dunno, but generally with things that can crumble you should make it step-by-step
crumble?
<zetok> which, in combination arch + newest bleeding edge kernel should be mandatory
<zetok> I hope that you have backups?
I do have backups, but it's on Crashplan, so I would prefer not to have to go there.
<zetok> and do you have any logs?
Where would those be?
I never understood journalctl
<zetok> journalctl --since=today
Hmm, it was actually yesterday that I started the remove, so I did --since=yesterday
I am looking at the log now, please stnad by.
This is my log
http://pastebin.com/mCPi3y9r
But I fear that it became read-only before actually writing the error to the filesystem
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Add big device, remove small device, read-only
2016-01-01 11:47 Add big device, remove small device, read-only Rasmus Abrahamsen
@ 2016-01-01 16:39 ` Duncan
2016-01-01 20:07 ` Chris Murphy
1 sibling, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Duncan @ 2016-01-01 16:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
Rasmus Abrahamsen posted on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 12:47:08 +0100 as excerpted:
> Happy New Year!
>
> I have a raid with a 1TB, .5TB, 1.5TB and recently added a 4TB and want
> to remove the 1.5TB. When saying btrfs dev delete it turned into
> readonly. I am on 4.2.5-1-ARCH and btrfs-progs v4.3.1 what can I do?
This isn't going to help with the specific problem, and doesn't apply to
your case now anyway as the 4 TB device has already been added so all
you're doing now is deleting the old one, but FWIW...
There's a fairly new command, btrfs replace, that can be used to directly
replace an old device with a new one, instead of doing btrfs device add,
followed by btrfs device delete/remove.
> On top of that, my linux is on this same raid, so perhaps btrfs is
> writing some temp files in the filesystem but cannot?
> . /dev/sdc1 on / type btrfs
> (ro,relatime,space_cache,subvolid=1187,subvol=/linux)
Your wording leaves me somewhat confused. You say your Linux, presumably
your root filesystem, is on the same raid as the filesystem that is
having problems. That would imply that it's a different filesystem,
which in turn would apply that the raid is below the filesystem level,
say mdraid, dmraid, or hardware raid, with both your btrfs root
filesystem, and the separate btrfs with the problems, on the same raid-
based device, presumably partitioned so you can put multiple filesystems
on the same device.
Which of course would generally mean the two btrfs themselves aren't
raid, unless of course you are using at least one non-btrfs raid as one
device under a btrfs raid. But while implied, that's not really
supported by what you said, which suggests a single btrfs raid
filesystem, instead. In which case, perhaps you meant that this
filesystem contains your root filesystem as well, not just that the raid
contains it.
Of course, if your post had included the usual btrfs fi show and btrfs fi
df (and btrfs fi usage would be good as well) that the wiki recommends be
posted with such reports, that might make things clearer, but it doesn't,
so we're left guessing...
But I'm assuming you meant a single multi-device btrfs, not multiple
btrfs that happen to be on the same non-btrfs raid.
Another question the show and df would answer is what btrfs raid mode
you're running. The default for multiple device btrfs is of course raid1
metadata and single mode data, but you might well have set it up with
data and metadata in the same mode, and/or with raid0/5/6/10 for one or
both data and metadata. You didn't say and didn't provide the btrfs
command output that would show it, so...
> <zetok> Ralle: did you do balance before removing?
>
> I did not, but I have experience with it balancing itself upon doing so.
> Upon removing a device, that is.
> I am just not sure how to proceed now that everything is read-only.
You were correct in that regard. btrfs device remove (or btrfs replace)
trigger balance as part of the process, and balancing after adding a
device, only to have balance trigger again with a delete/remove, is
needless.
Actually, I suspect the remove-triggered balance ran across a problem it
didn't know how to handle when attempting to move one of the chunks from
the existing device, and that's what put the filesystem in read-only
mode. That's usually what happens when btrfs device remove triggers
problems and people report it, anyway. A balance before the remove would
have simply triggered it then, anyway.
But what the specific problem is, and what to do about it, remains to be
seen. Having that btrfs fi show and btrfs fi df would be a good start,
letting us know at least what raid type we're dealing with, etc.
> <zetok> I hope that you have backups?
>
> I do have backups, but it's on Crashplan, so I would prefer not to have
> to go there.
That's wise, both him asking and you replying you already have them, but
just want to avoid using them if possible. Waaayyy too many folks
posting here find out the hard way about the admin's first rule of
backups, in simplified form, that if you don't have backups, you are
declaring by your actions that the data not backed up is worth less to
you than the time, resources and hassle required to do those backups,
despite any after-the-fact protests to the contrary. Not being in that
group already puts you well ahead of the game! =:^)
> <zetok> and do you have any logs?
>
> Where would those be?
> I never understood journalctl
>
> <zetok> journalctl --since=today
>
> Hmm, it was actually yesterday that I started the remove, so I did
> --since=yesterday I am looking at the log now, please stnad by.
> This is my log http://pastebin.com/mCPi3y9r But I fear that it became
> read-only before actually writing the error to the filesystem
Hmm... Looks like my strategy of having both systemd's journald, and
syslog-ng, might pay off. I have journald configured to only do
temporary files, which it keeps in /run/log/journal, with /run of course
tmpfs. That way I get systemd's journal enhancements like the ability to
do systemctl status <some-service> and have it give me the latest few log
entries associated with that service as well. But it doesn't journal to
anything but tmpfs so it's current boot only. Meanwhile, syslog-ng is
configured to take messages from journald and to sort and filter them as
it normally would, before saving them to various text-based logs. That
way I get only the text-based and easily grepped, etc, logs in permanent
storage. That lets me filter out "log noise" before it even hits storage
(journald can apparently only filter on the output side, it writes
everything it sees to the journal). Also, because text-based logs are
append-only, they don't heavily fragment like journald's binary logs do
on btrfs due to the more random write-pattern of the journal files and
btrfs being cow-based so rewrites to existing parts of the file copy them
elsewhere, triggering heavy fragmentation. I figure that's the best of
both worlds. =:^)
But a benefit I hadn't considered until now is that when storage goes
read-only, the journal, being tmpfs-only in my case, continues to
journal, even when syslog-ng can no longer log to permanent storage
because it's now read-only. =:^)
Back to your situation, however. These will be kernel messages and thus
appear in dmesg. While that's size-restricted and old messages are
thrown away once the ring-buffer fills up, with luck your buffer is large
enough that the trigger for that read-only is still in dmesg.
And while waiting to see if dmesg returns anything interesting, another
set of questions. How old is your btrfs and with what kernel and btrfs-
progs version was it created, if you know, and was it originally created
with mkfs.btrfs, or converted from ext* using btrfs-convert? I'll guess
it was created with mkfs.btrfs, but I'm asking, since ext* conversions
have their own set of problems that are rare or don't happen at all on
native-created btrfs, and it's often balance that exposes these
problems. If you created with mkfs.btrfs, at least we don't have to
worry about the whole set of conversion-related problems.
Meanwhile, depending on the problem, a reboot will likely get you back to
read-write mode, assuming the filesystem still mounts, but there's a risk
you won't be able to mount again, as well, again depending on the problem.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Add big device, remove small device, read-only
2016-01-01 11:47 Add big device, remove small device, read-only Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-01 16:39 ` Duncan
@ 2016-01-01 20:07 ` Chris Murphy
2016-01-01 20:20 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Chris Murphy @ 2016-01-01 20:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rasmus Abrahamsen; +Cc: Btrfs BTRFS
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Rasmus Abrahamsen <btrfs@rasmusa.net> wrote:
> Happy New Year!
>
> I have a raid with a 1TB, .5TB, 1.5TB and recently added a 4TB and want to remove the 1.5TB. When saying btrfs dev delete it turned into readonly. I am on 4.2.5-1-ARCH and btrfs-progs v4.3.1 what can I do?
btrfs fi show
lsblk -f
btrfs fi usage <pathtomountpointforbtrfsvolumeunderdiscussion>
he remove, so I did --since=yesterday
> I am looking at the log now, please stnad by.
> This is my log
> http://pastebin.com/mCPi3y9r
What's this?
Dec 31 15:03:56 rasmusahome systemd-udevd[6340]: inotify_add_watch(9,
/dev/sdd1, 10) failed: No space left on device
Dec 31 15:04:01 rasmusahome kernel: sdd: sdd1
Dec 31 15:04:01 rasmusahome systemd-udevd[6341]: inotify_add_watch(9,
/dev/sdd1, 10) failed: No space left on device
Dec 31 15:05:43 rasmusahome kernel: BTRFS info (device sdb1): disk
added /dev/sdd1
Why is udev first complaining about no space left on sdd1, but then
it's being added to the btrfs volume?
--
Chris Murphy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Add big device, remove small device, read-only
2016-01-01 20:07 ` Chris Murphy
@ 2016-01-01 20:20 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-02 10:08 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Rasmus Abrahamsen @ 2016-01-01 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Murphy, Rasmus Abrahamsen; +Cc: Btrfs BTRFS
I accidentically sent my messages directly to Duncan, I am copying them
in here.
Hello Duncan,
Thank you for the amazing response. Wow, you are awesome.
Here is the output of fi show, fi df and mount, sorry for not providing
them to begin with:
http://pastebin.com/DpiuDvRy
> On 01 Jan 2016, at 17:39, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Rasmus Abrahamsen posted on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 12:47:08 +0100 as excerpted:
>
>> Happy New Year!
>>
>> I have a raid with a 1TB, .5TB, 1.5TB and recently added a 4TB and want
>> to remove the 1.5TB. When saying btrfs dev delete it turned into
>> readonly. I am on 4.2.5-1-ARCH and btrfs-progs v4.3.1 what can I do?
>
> This isn't going to help with the specific problem, and doesn't apply to
> your case now anyway as the 4 TB device has already been added so all
> you're doing now is deleting the old one, but FWIW...
>
> There's a fairly new command, btrfs replace, that can be used to directly
> replace an old device with a new one, instead of doing btrfs device add,
> followed by btrfs device delete/remove.
>
>> On top of that, my linux is on this same raid, so perhaps btrfs is
>> writing some temp files in the filesystem but cannot?
>> . /dev/sdc1 on / type btrfs
>> (ro,relatime,space_cache,subvolid=1187,subvol=/linux)
>
> Your wording leaves me somewhat confused. You say your Linux, presumably
> your root filesystem, is on the same raid as the filesystem that is
> having problems. That would imply that it's a different filesystem,
> which in turn would apply that the raid is below the filesystem level,
> say mdraid, dmraid, or hardware raid, with both your btrfs root
> filesystem, and the separate btrfs with the problems, on the same raid-
> based device, presumably partitioned so you can put multiple filesystems
> on the same device.
>
> Which of course would generally mean the two btrfs themselves aren't
> raid, unless of course you are using at least one non-btrfs raid as one
> device under a btrfs raid. But while implied, that's not really
> supported by what you said, which suggests a single btrfs raid
> filesystem, instead. In which case, perhaps you meant that this
> filesystem contains your root filesystem as well, not just that the raid
> contains it.
>
> Of course, if your post had included the usual btrfs fi show and btrfs fi
> df (and btrfs fi usage would be good as well) that the wiki recommends be
> posted with such reports, that might make things clearer, but it doesn't,
> so we're left guessing...
>
> But I'm assuming you meant a single multi-device btrfs, not multiple
> btrfs that happen to be on the same non-btrfs raid.
My root / is a sub volume of my filesystem. I will only be talking about
the filesystem named “Fortune”, the one named “Glassbox” is not relevant
to this problem.
>
> Another question the show and df would answer is what btrfs raid mode
> you're running. The default for multiple device btrfs is of course raid1
> metadata and single mode data, but you might well have set it up with
> data and metadata in the same mode, and/or with raid0/5/6/10 for one or
> both data and metadata. You didn't say and didn't provide the btrfs
> command output that would show it, so...
>
>> <zetok> Ralle: did you do balance before removing?
>>
>> I did not, but I have experience with it balancing itself upon doing so.
>> Upon removing a device, that is.
>> I am just not sure how to proceed now that everything is read-only.
>
> You were correct in that regard. btrfs device remove (or btrfs replace)
> trigger balance as part of the process, and balancing after adding a
> device, only to have balance trigger again with a delete/remove, is
> needless.
>
> Actually, I suspect the remove-triggered balance ran across a problem it
> didn't know how to handle when attempting to move one of the chunks from
> the existing device, and that's what put the filesystem in read-only
> mode. That's usually what happens when btrfs device remove triggers
> problems and people report it, anyway. A balance before the remove would
> have simply triggered it then, anyway.
>
> But what the specific problem is, and what to do about it, remains to be
> seen. Having that btrfs fi show and btrfs fi df would be a good start,
> letting us know at least what raid type we're dealing with, etc.
>
>> <zetok> I hope that you have backups?
>>
>> I do have backups, but it's on Crashplan, so I would prefer not to have
>> to go there.
>
> That's wise, both him asking and you replying you already have them, but
> just want to avoid using them if possible. Waaayyy too many folks
> posting here find out the hard way about the admin's first rule of
> backups, in simplified form, that if you don't have backups, you are
> declaring by your actions that the data not backed up is worth less to
> you than the time, resources and hassle required to do those backups,
> despite any after-the-fact protests to the contrary. Not being in that
> group already puts you well ahead of the game! =:^)
>
>> <zetok> and do you have any logs?
>>
>> Where would those be?
>> I never understood journalctl
>>
>> <zetok> journalctl --since=today
>>
>> Hmm, it was actually yesterday that I started the remove, so I did
>> --since=yesterday I am looking at the log now, please stnad by.
>> This is my log http://pastebin.com/mCPi3y9r But I fear that it became
>> read-only before actually writing the error to the filesystem
>
> Hmm... Looks like my strategy of having both systemd's journald, and
> syslog-ng, might pay off. I have journald configured to only do
> temporary files, which it keeps in /run/log/journal, with /run of course
> tmpfs. That way I get systemd's journal enhancements like the ability to
> do systemctl status <some-service> and have it give me the latest few log
> entries associated with that service as well. But it doesn't journal to
> anything but tmpfs so it's current boot only. Meanwhile, syslog-ng is
> configured to take messages from journald and to sort and filter them as
> it normally would, before saving them to various text-based logs. That
> way I get only the text-based and easily grepped, etc, logs in permanent
> storage. That lets me filter out "log noise" before it even hits storage
> (journald can apparently only filter on the output side, it writes
> everything it sees to the journal). Also, because text-based logs are
> append-only, they don't heavily fragment like journald's binary logs do
> on btrfs due to the more random write-pattern of the journal files and
> btrfs being cow-based so rewrites to existing parts of the file copy them
> elsewhere, triggering heavy fragmentation. I figure that's the best of
> both worlds. =:^)
>
> But a benefit I hadn't considered until now is that when storage goes
> read-only, the journal, being tmpfs-only in my case, continues to
> journal, even when syslog-ng can no longer log to permanent storage
> because it's now read-only. =:^)
>
>
> Back to your situation, however. These will be kernel messages and thus
> appear in dmesg. While that's size-restricted and old messages are
> thrown away once the ring-buffer fills up, with luck your buffer is large
> enough that the trigger for that read-only is still in dmesg.
Dmesg contains nothing interesting unfortunately. About 12 hours passed
and lots of cronjobs have attempted to run since then. I cannot disable
these because it is read-only. I can however stop the service. I will do
that now… Failed:
Failed to add /run/systemd/ask-password to directory watch: No space
left on device
>
> And while waiting to see if dmesg returns anything interesting, another
> set of questions. How old is your btrfs and with what kernel and btrfs-
> progs version was it created, if you know, and was it originally created
> with mkfs.btrfs, or converted from ext* using btrfs-convert? I'll guess
> it was created with mkfs.btrfs, but I'm asking, since ext* conversions
> have their own set of problems that are rare or don't happen at all on
> native-created btrfs, and it's often balance that exposes these
> problems. If you created with mkfs.btrfs, at least we don't have to
> worry about the whole set of conversion-related problems.
I cannot remember how this filesystem was created, I believe it was
mkfs.btrfs. I created it last year (actually 2014) on the latest Arch
Linux. I created it as a btrfs from the beginning.
>
> Meanwhile, depending on the problem, a reboot will likely get you back to
> read-write mode, assuming the filesystem still mounts, but there's a risk
> you won't be able to mount again, as well, again depending on the problem.
I am not physically next to my machine right now, so I was afraid of
rebooting in case I could do something remotely. I will be close to my
machine in a few hours. I will try rebooting it now, however.
>
> --
> Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
> "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
> and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Thank you very much for your extremely thorough response despite my lack
of providing information.
Rasmus
UPDATE:
The reboot succeeded and it is not read-only anymore. I tried the
command:
btrfs dev delete /dev/sdb1 /mnt/fortune
again and it's running again. This time I am keeping a window with:
cat /proc/kmsg | grep BTRFS
running. We'll see how it goes.
Rasmus
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016, at 09:07 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Rasmus Abrahamsen <btrfs@rasmusa.net>
> wrote:
> > Happy New Year!
> >
> > I have a raid with a 1TB, .5TB, 1.5TB and recently added a 4TB and want to remove the 1.5TB. When saying btrfs dev delete it turned into readonly. I am on 4.2.5-1-ARCH and btrfs-progs v4.3.1 what can I do?
>
> btrfs fi show
> lsblk -f
> btrfs fi usage <pathtomountpointforbtrfsvolumeunderdiscussion>
>
>
> he remove, so I did --since=yesterday
> > I am looking at the log now, please stnad by.
> > This is my log
> > http://pastebin.com/mCPi3y9r
>
> What's this?
>
> Dec 31 15:03:56 rasmusahome systemd-udevd[6340]: inotify_add_watch(9,
> /dev/sdd1, 10) failed: No space left on device
> Dec 31 15:04:01 rasmusahome kernel: sdd: sdd1
> Dec 31 15:04:01 rasmusahome systemd-udevd[6341]: inotify_add_watch(9,
> /dev/sdd1, 10) failed: No space left on device
> Dec 31 15:05:43 rasmusahome kernel: BTRFS info (device sdb1): disk
> added /dev/sdd1
>
> Why is udev first complaining about no space left on sdd1, but then
> it's being added to the btrfs volume?
>
>
>
> --
> Chris Murphy
I have no idea.
I am adding the commands you asked for:
[ralle@rasmusahome ~]$ sudo lsblk -f
NAME FSTYPE LABEL UUID MOUNTPOINT
sda
`-sda1 btrfs Fortune f87c173c-c873-424f-9c79-3be2c4d37d88
sdb
|-sdb1 btrfs Fortune f87c173c-c873-424f-9c79-3be2c4d37d88
`-sdb2 btrfs Glassbox ca44c8e4-1a26-4b4a-ba52-38a4b0d3f104
/mnt/glassbox
sdc
`-sdc1 btrfs Fortune f87c173c-c873-424f-9c79-3be2c4d37d88 /mnt/fortune
sdd
`-sdd1 btrfs Fortune f87c173c-c873-424f-9c79-3be2c4d37d88
sde
`-sde1
[ralle@rasmusahome ~]$ sudo btrfs fi usage /mnt/fortune/
Overall:
Device size: 5.00TiB
Device allocated: 2.20TiB
Device unallocated: 2.81TiB
Device missing: 0.00B
Used: 2.19TiB
Free (estimated): 1.41TiB (min: 1.41TiB)
Data ratio: 2.00
Metadata ratio: 2.00
Global reserve: 512.00MiB (used: 114.56MiB)
Data,RAID1: Size:1.09TiB, Used:1.08TiB
/dev/sda1 787.00GiB
/dev/sdb1 613.00GiB
/dev/sdc1 326.00GiB
/dev/sdd1 500.00GiB
Metadata,RAID1: Size:11.00GiB, Used:9.12GiB
/dev/sda1 7.00GiB
/dev/sdb1 4.00GiB
/dev/sdc1 4.00GiB
/dev/sdd1 7.00GiB
System,RAID1: Size:32.00MiB, Used:208.00KiB
/dev/sda1 32.00MiB
/dev/sdb1 32.00MiB
Unallocated:
/dev/sda1 137.48GiB
/dev/sdb1 16.00EiB
/dev/sdc1 135.76GiB
/dev/sdd1 3.14TiB
I am sorry if this message is very confusing...
Rasmus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Add big device, remove small device, read-only
2016-01-01 20:20 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
@ 2016-01-02 10:08 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-02 11:03 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
[not found] ` <13CBB600-0779-40B7-BD20-ED571A3336D7@rasmusa.net>
2016-01-02 19:56 ` Chris Murphy
2016-01-06 6:45 ` Duncan
2 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Rasmus Abrahamsen @ 2016-01-02 10:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Murphy, Rasmus Abrahamsen; +Cc: Btrfs BTRFS
This morning I wanted to check on progress of removing the device but
when trying to get the screen to wake, I was met with nothing. I tried
SSH, nothing. The machine had crashed or something of the like. After a
reboot, the device is still part of the filesystem.
I have now tried booting from an Arch Linux flash drive and try to
remove the device when booted from that.
Let's see how it goes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Add big device, remove small device, read-only
2016-01-02 10:08 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
@ 2016-01-02 11:03 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
[not found] ` <13CBB600-0779-40B7-BD20-ED571A3336D7@rasmusa.net>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Rasmus Abrahamsen @ 2016-01-02 11:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Btrfs BTRFS
Oops, sent this message from the wrong email, then tried attaching a file. I am really bad at this.
This morning I wanted to check on progress of removing the device but
when trying to get the screen to wake, I was met with nothing. I tried
SSH, nothing. The machine had crashed or something of the like. After a
reboot, the device is still part of the filesystem.
I have now tried booting from an Arch Linux flash drive and try to
remove the device when booted from that.
Let's see how it goes.
UPDATE: Seems like the kernel crashed. I have attached a picture link.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/323865/2016-01-02%20IMG_8478.jpg
Can anyone give me any advice on what to do?
I think I will reboot and try a btrfs scrub before trying again.
Rasmus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Add big device, remove small device, read-only
[not found] ` <13CBB600-0779-40B7-BD20-ED571A3336D7@rasmusa.net>
@ 2016-01-02 16:45 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-02 19:47 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Rasmus Abrahamsen @ 2016-01-02 16:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Btrfs BTRFS
Okay, the scrub seemingly did nothing, I am now running balance. This is what I am getting so far:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/02rpab0zcc6er2u/2016-01-02%20IMG_8483.jpg?dl=0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Add big device, remove small device, read-only
2016-01-02 16:45 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
@ 2016-01-02 19:47 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-02 19:57 ` Chris Murphy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Rasmus Abrahamsen @ 2016-01-02 19:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Btrfs BTRFS
The scrub was frozen. I tried to cancel it but it had become read-only.
I rebooted and am now looking into what btrfsck can do for me
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 05:45 PM, Rasmus Abrahamsen wrote:
> Okay, the scrub seemingly did nothing, I am now running balance. This is
> what I am getting so far:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/02rpab0zcc6er2u/2016-01-02%20IMG_8483.jpg?dl=0--
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Add big device, remove small device, read-only
2016-01-01 20:20 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-02 10:08 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
@ 2016-01-02 19:56 ` Chris Murphy
2016-01-02 19:58 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-06 6:45 ` Duncan
2 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Chris Murphy @ 2016-01-02 19:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rasmus Abrahamsen; +Cc: Chris Murphy, Rasmus Abrahamsen, Btrfs BTRFS
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Rasmus Abrahamsen <me@rasmusa.net> wrote:
> [ralle@rasmusahome ~]$ sudo btrfs fi usage /mnt/fortune/
[snip]
> Unallocated:
> /dev/sda1 137.48GiB
> /dev/sdb1 16.00EiB
> /dev/sdc1 135.76GiB
> /dev/sdd1 3.14TiB
Another phantom 16.00EiB, this time it appears as unallocated space on
a devices, rather than free space as it is in a bug I recently filed.
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110111
--
Chris Murphy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Add big device, remove small device, read-only
2016-01-02 19:47 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
@ 2016-01-02 19:57 ` Chris Murphy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Chris Murphy @ 2016-01-02 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rasmus Abrahamsen; +Cc: Btrfs BTRFS
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Rasmus Abrahamsen <btrfs@rasmusa.net> wrote:
> The scrub was frozen. I tried to cancel it but it had become read-only.
> I rebooted and am now looking into what btrfsck can do for me
Stay away from btrfs check --repair until it's a last restort. As in,
you have to have all data scraped off the volume before you decide to
use it. It's gotten a lot better at not making things worse, but I
still don't trust it.
--
Chris Murphy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Add big device, remove small device, read-only
2016-01-02 19:56 ` Chris Murphy
@ 2016-01-02 19:58 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-02 20:15 ` Chris Murphy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Rasmus Abrahamsen @ 2016-01-02 19:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Murphy; +Cc: Rasmus Abrahamsen, Btrfs BTRFS
What do you recommend I do? Everything is redundant across disks.
Perhaps I can disconnect the one you mentioned and delete missing.
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 08:56 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Rasmus Abrahamsen <me@rasmusa.net> wrote:
> > [ralle@rasmusahome ~]$ sudo btrfs fi usage /mnt/fortune/
> [snip]
> > Unallocated:
> > /dev/sda1 137.48GiB
> > /dev/sdb1 16.00EiB
> > /dev/sdc1 135.76GiB
> > /dev/sdd1 3.14TiB
>
> Another phantom 16.00EiB, this time it appears as unallocated space on
> a devices, rather than free space as it is in a bug I recently filed.
>
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110111
>
>
> --
> Chris Murphy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Add big device, remove small device, read-only
2016-01-02 19:58 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
@ 2016-01-02 20:15 ` Chris Murphy
2016-01-02 20:32 ` Chris Murphy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Chris Murphy @ 2016-01-02 20:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rasmus Abrahamsen; +Cc: Chris Murphy, Btrfs BTRFS
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Rasmus Abrahamsen <btrfs@rasmusa.net> wrote:
> What do you recommend I do? Everything is redundant across disks.
> Perhaps I can disconnect the one you mentioned and delete missing.
No, please stop trying new things like throwing spaghetti at a wall.
The file system is not healthy or it wouldn't behave the way it is. If
you have a current backup, and want to keep playing to see how bad
it'll get, then keep proceeding.
But if you have any important data on this volume that you don't have
a current backup for, then you need to make as few changes as
possible. Don't delete devices. Don't run btrfsck. Don't scrub. Don't
balance. Just try to get it mounted first, and then btrfs send, rsync,
or cp the data you need off the volume onto a new volume.
--
Chris Murphy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Add big device, remove small device, read-only
2016-01-02 20:15 ` Chris Murphy
@ 2016-01-02 20:32 ` Chris Murphy
2016-01-02 20:39 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Chris Murphy @ 2016-01-02 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Murphy; +Cc: Rasmus Abrahamsen, Btrfs BTRFS
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Rasmus Abrahamsen <btrfs@rasmusa.net> wrote:
>> What do you recommend I do? Everything is redundant across disks.
>> Perhaps I can disconnect the one you mentioned and delete missing.
>
> No, please stop trying new things like throwing spaghetti at a wall.
> The file system is not healthy or it wouldn't behave the way it is. If
> you have a current backup, and want to keep playing to see how bad
> it'll get, then keep proceeding.
>
> But if you have any important data on this volume that you don't have
> a current backup for, then you need to make as few changes as
> possible. Don't delete devices. Don't run btrfsck. Don't scrub. Don't
> balance. Just try to get it mounted first, and then btrfs send, rsync,
> or cp the data you need off the volume onto a new volume.
That means try a normal mount with no mount options first. If that
doesn't work then try:
-o recovery
-o ro,recovery
-o ro,recovery,degraded
If you can get it rw mounted, then you maybe can make ro snapshots
that you can send/receive to a new Btrfs file system. Or rsync -a or
cp -a to a new other file system.
If you can't get it rw mounted, and don't already have ro snapshots of
the things you want, then you'll have to use rsync or cp.
--
Chris Murphy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Add big device, remove small device, read-only
2016-01-02 20:32 ` Chris Murphy
@ 2016-01-02 20:39 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-02 21:28 ` Chris Murphy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Rasmus Abrahamsen @ 2016-01-02 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Murphy; +Cc: Btrfs BTRFS
Sounds like you think my best bet is to re-roll my filesystem instead of
attempt to repair it. Is that right?
I have snapshots which are based on each other as a backup of a remote
machine by date. By sending these snapshots to a new filesystem, will I
be able to have them still be incremental and save space?
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 09:32 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Rasmus Abrahamsen <btrfs@rasmusa.net> wrote:
> >> What do you recommend I do? Everything is redundant across disks.
> >> Perhaps I can disconnect the one you mentioned and delete missing.
> >
> > No, please stop trying new things like throwing spaghetti at a wall.
> > The file system is not healthy or it wouldn't behave the way it is. If
> > you have a current backup, and want to keep playing to see how bad
> > it'll get, then keep proceeding.
> >
> > But if you have any important data on this volume that you don't have
> > a current backup for, then you need to make as few changes as
> > possible. Don't delete devices. Don't run btrfsck. Don't scrub. Don't
> > balance. Just try to get it mounted first, and then btrfs send, rsync,
> > or cp the data you need off the volume onto a new volume.
>
> That means try a normal mount with no mount options first. If that
> doesn't work then try:
>
> -o recovery
> -o ro,recovery
> -o ro,recovery,degraded
>
> If you can get it rw mounted, then you maybe can make ro snapshots
> that you can send/receive to a new Btrfs file system. Or rsync -a or
> cp -a to a new other file system.
>
> If you can't get it rw mounted, and don't already have ro snapshots of
> the things you want, then you'll have to use rsync or cp.
>
>
> --
> Chris Murphy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Add big device, remove small device, read-only
2016-01-02 20:39 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
@ 2016-01-02 21:28 ` Chris Murphy
2016-01-02 21:30 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Chris Murphy @ 2016-01-02 21:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rasmus Abrahamsen; +Cc: Chris Murphy, Btrfs BTRFS
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Rasmus Abrahamsen <btrfs@rasmusa.net> wrote:
> Sounds like you think my best bet is to re-roll my filesystem instead of
> attempt to repair it. Is that right?
If you want to get back to a working fs as soon as possible, yes. You
could take a btrfs-image of it first; if that fails you can use
btrfs-debug-tree. Both of those should direct the output to a file on
another file system. Maybe a dev will find it useful?
And then if you want you can keep trying to repair it, but my
experience is that in such cases the fs quickly is in the weeds and is
beyond repair even when it's possible to ro mount or use restore to
get all data out.
> I have snapshots which are based on each other as a backup of a remote
> machine by date. By sending these snapshots to a new filesystem, will I
> be able to have them still be incremental and save space?
Yes, the first one without -p is the big send. Then each additional
one uses the most immediate previous snapshot with -p. I haven't tried
the -e option with multiple increments, so I don't know if that works
or if it's expected to work.
I'm having to do this right now myself with an imploded raid1 that
won't mount so I might find out in the next hour or two if -e works.
--
Chris Murphy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Add big device, remove small device, read-only
2016-01-02 21:28 ` Chris Murphy
@ 2016-01-02 21:30 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-02 21:37 ` Chris Murphy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Rasmus Abrahamsen @ 2016-01-02 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Murphy; +Cc: Btrfs BTRFS
Okay, I will rebuild it then. Thank you.
Where do I add -p?
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 10:28 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Rasmus Abrahamsen <btrfs@rasmusa.net>
> wrote:
> > Sounds like you think my best bet is to re-roll my filesystem instead of
> > attempt to repair it. Is that right?
>
> If you want to get back to a working fs as soon as possible, yes. You
> could take a btrfs-image of it first; if that fails you can use
> btrfs-debug-tree. Both of those should direct the output to a file on
> another file system. Maybe a dev will find it useful?
>
> And then if you want you can keep trying to repair it, but my
> experience is that in such cases the fs quickly is in the weeds and is
> beyond repair even when it's possible to ro mount or use restore to
> get all data out.
>
>
> > I have snapshots which are based on each other as a backup of a remote
> > machine by date. By sending these snapshots to a new filesystem, will I
> > be able to have them still be incremental and save space?
>
> Yes, the first one without -p is the big send. Then each additional
> one uses the most immediate previous snapshot with -p. I haven't tried
> the -e option with multiple increments, so I don't know if that works
> or if it's expected to work.
>
> I'm having to do this right now myself with an imploded raid1 that
> won't mount so I might find out in the next hour or two if -e works.
>
>
>
> --
> Chris Murphy
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Add big device, remove small device, read-only
2016-01-02 21:30 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
@ 2016-01-02 21:37 ` Chris Murphy
2016-01-02 21:42 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Chris Murphy @ 2016-01-02 21:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rasmus Abrahamsen; +Cc: Chris Murphy, Btrfs BTRFS
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Rasmus Abrahamsen <btrfs@rasmusa.net> wrote:
> Okay, I will rebuild it then. Thank you.
>
> Where do I add -p?
OK for me, I have these ro snapshots:
drwxrwx---. 1 chris chris 218 Apr 3 2015 everything-20150403
drwxrwx---. 1 chris chris 218 Apr 3 2015 everything-20150404
drwxrwx---. 1 chris chris 218 Apr 3 2015 everything-20150412
drwxrwx---. 1 chris chris 218 Apr 3 2015 everything-20150922
# btrfs send everything-20150403 | btrfs receive /mnt/new
# btrfs send -p everything-20150403 everything-20150404 | btrfs receive /mnt/new
# btrfs send -p everything-20150404 everything-20150412 | btrfs receive /mnt/new
# btrfs send -p everything-20150412 everything-20150922 | btrfs receive /mnt/new
I have not tried to use && in between those, instead of just
separately issuing the commands.
It's valid to always use the same first subvolume as -p, but the
increments are then larger so even though it succeeds, it's also
inefficient.
--
Chris Murphy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Add big device, remove small device, read-only
2016-01-02 21:37 ` Chris Murphy
@ 2016-01-02 21:42 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-02 22:46 ` Chris Murphy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Rasmus Abrahamsen @ 2016-01-02 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Murphy; +Cc: Btrfs BTRFS
Do you mean that the pipe is not a bash pipe or that you executed the
commands as written? Sounds like you had two terminals and executed the
left side of the pipe and then the right side.
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Rasmus Abrahamsen <btrfs@rasmusa.net>
> wrote:
> > Okay, I will rebuild it then. Thank you.
> >
> > Where do I add -p?
>
> OK for me, I have these ro snapshots:
> drwxrwx---. 1 chris chris 218 Apr 3 2015 everything-20150403
> drwxrwx---. 1 chris chris 218 Apr 3 2015 everything-20150404
> drwxrwx---. 1 chris chris 218 Apr 3 2015 everything-20150412
> drwxrwx---. 1 chris chris 218 Apr 3 2015 everything-20150922
>
> # btrfs send everything-20150403 | btrfs receive /mnt/new
> # btrfs send -p everything-20150403 everything-20150404 | btrfs receive
> /mnt/new
> # btrfs send -p everything-20150404 everything-20150412 | btrfs receive
> /mnt/new
> # btrfs send -p everything-20150412 everything-20150922 | btrfs receive
> /mnt/new
>
> I have not tried to use && in between those, instead of just
> separately issuing the commands.
>
> It's valid to always use the same first subvolume as -p, but the
> increments are then larger so even though it succeeds, it's also
> inefficient.
>
> --
> Chris Murphy
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Add big device, remove small device, read-only
2016-01-02 21:42 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
@ 2016-01-02 22:46 ` Chris Murphy
2016-01-03 10:29 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Chris Murphy @ 2016-01-02 22:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rasmus Abrahamsen; +Cc: Chris Murphy, Btrfs BTRFS
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Rasmus Abrahamsen <btrfs@rasmusa.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Rasmus Abrahamsen <btrfs@rasmusa.net>
>> wrote:
>> > Okay, I will rebuild it then. Thank you.
>> >
>> > Where do I add -p?
>>
>> OK for me, I have these ro snapshots:
>> drwxrwx---. 1 chris chris 218 Apr 3 2015 everything-20150403
>> drwxrwx---. 1 chris chris 218 Apr 3 2015 everything-20150404
>> drwxrwx---. 1 chris chris 218 Apr 3 2015 everything-20150412
>> drwxrwx---. 1 chris chris 218 Apr 3 2015 everything-20150922
>>
>> # btrfs send everything-20150403 | btrfs receive /mnt/new
>> # btrfs send -p everything-20150403 everything-20150404 | btrfs receive
>> /mnt/new
>> # btrfs send -p everything-20150404 everything-20150412 | btrfs receive
>> /mnt/new
>> # btrfs send -p everything-20150412 everything-20150922 | btrfs receive
>> /mnt/new
>>
> Do you mean that the pipe is not a bash pipe or that you executed the
> commands as written? Sounds like you had two terminals and executed the
> left side of the pipe and then the right side.
I execute those commands exactly as written, in a single shell. Each
command completes before I can execute the next one.
The part I wrote about && is about my lack of bash experience; I don't
know of a way to execute the above commands at once such that they
happen in exactly that sequence so I could walk away.
--
Chris Murphy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Add big device, remove small device, read-only
2016-01-02 22:46 ` Chris Murphy
@ 2016-01-03 10:29 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Rasmus Abrahamsen @ 2016-01-03 10:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Murphy; +Cc: Btrfs BTRFS
Okay thank you.
I don't know the ordering of && and |. I think you can use parentheses
in bash perhaps? In any case, line breaks work to separate the tasks.
I am now doing the following:
I detached my new 4 TB drive and am mounting -o degraded. Then I am
doing
# find . -type f -exec cat {} > /dev/null \;
In each folder of data I care about. If all of it is readable without my
TB, then I can safely create a new BTRFS on the 4 TB and migrate my data
over.
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 11:46 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Rasmus Abrahamsen <btrfs@rasmusa.net>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Rasmus Abrahamsen <btrfs@rasmusa.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Okay, I will rebuild it then. Thank you.
> >> >
> >> > Where do I add -p?
> >>
> >> OK for me, I have these ro snapshots:
> >> drwxrwx---. 1 chris chris 218 Apr 3 2015 everything-20150403
> >> drwxrwx---. 1 chris chris 218 Apr 3 2015 everything-20150404
> >> drwxrwx---. 1 chris chris 218 Apr 3 2015 everything-20150412
> >> drwxrwx---. 1 chris chris 218 Apr 3 2015 everything-20150922
> >>
> >> # btrfs send everything-20150403 | btrfs receive /mnt/new
> >> # btrfs send -p everything-20150403 everything-20150404 | btrfs receive
> >> /mnt/new
> >> # btrfs send -p everything-20150404 everything-20150412 | btrfs receive
> >> /mnt/new
> >> # btrfs send -p everything-20150412 everything-20150922 | btrfs receive
> >> /mnt/new
> >>
>
> > Do you mean that the pipe is not a bash pipe or that you executed the
> > commands as written? Sounds like you had two terminals and executed the
> > left side of the pipe and then the right side.
>
> I execute those commands exactly as written, in a single shell. Each
> command completes before I can execute the next one.
>
> The part I wrote about && is about my lack of bash experience; I don't
> know of a way to execute the above commands at once such that they
> happen in exactly that sequence so I could walk away.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Chris Murphy
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Add big device, remove small device, read-only
2016-01-01 20:20 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-02 10:08 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-02 19:56 ` Chris Murphy
@ 2016-01-06 6:45 ` Duncan
2016-01-06 11:04 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
2 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Duncan @ 2016-01-06 6:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
Rasmus Abrahamsen posted on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 21:20:13 +0100 as excerpted:
> I accidentically sent my messages directly to Duncan, I am copying them
> in here.
>
> Hello Duncan,
>
> Thank you for the amazing response. Wow, you are awesome.
Just a note to mention that real life (TM) got in the way, and I'm a few
days and a couple hundred posts behind on the list, now. Sounds like you
have a backup tho, and if worse comes to worse, you can simply blow away
the filesystem and start over. Between that and Chris Murphy helping you
now, I read the thread to date but am simply marking it read without
further replies as it exists ATM, but might reply to new posts to the
thread from now, if I think I can be helpful.
(Which is why I try to discourage direct replies, too. With direct
replies to a single person, if that person doesn't get back... While if
it's to the list, there's more that can take up the thread, it's not on
just one person. Of course the just to me was an accident, but...)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Add big device, remove small device, read-only
2016-01-06 6:45 ` Duncan
@ 2016-01-06 11:04 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Rasmus Abrahamsen @ 2016-01-06 11:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016, at 07:45 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Rasmus Abrahamsen posted on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 21:20:13 +0100 as excerpted:
>
> > I accidentically sent my messages directly to Duncan, I am copying them
> > in here.
> >
> > Hello Duncan,
> >
> > Thank you for the amazing response. Wow, you are awesome.
>
> Just a note to mention that real life (TM) got in the way, and I'm a few
> days and a couple hundred posts behind on the list, now. Sounds like you
> have a backup tho, and if worse comes to worse, you can simply blow away
> the filesystem and start over. Between that and Chris Murphy helping you
> now, I read the thread to date but am simply marking it read without
> further replies as it exists ATM, but might reply to new posts to the
> thread from now, if I think I can be helpful.
>
> (Which is why I try to discourage direct replies, too. With direct
> replies to a single person, if that person doesn't get back... While if
> it's to the list, there's more that can take up the thread, it's not on
> just one person. Of course the just to me was an accident, but...)
>
> --
> Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
> "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
> and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Yeah, I have made many mistakes as this is my first time participating
on a mailing list :)
I decided to blow away the filesystem and start over. I did so by
physically removing the new 4 TB drive, mounting -o degraded and then
running:
find . -type f -exec cat {} >> /dev/null \;
In all folders that matter to me to make sure everything is readable
without the new drive. I then formatted the new drive as BTRFS and moved
over all my data. Then I added my old 4 TB drive to the new filesystem
and did balance -dconvert=raid1 -mconvert=raid1. I am now online with
the new filesystem and things are good.
I was expecting btrfs to just work (tm) when adding the new drive and
removing the old, so that made me a little sad. However, it's awesome
that no data was lost and my method actually worked.
Thanks for a great place and product.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-01-06 11:04 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-01-01 11:47 Add big device, remove small device, read-only Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-01 16:39 ` Duncan
2016-01-01 20:07 ` Chris Murphy
2016-01-01 20:20 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-02 10:08 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-02 11:03 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
[not found] ` <13CBB600-0779-40B7-BD20-ED571A3336D7@rasmusa.net>
2016-01-02 16:45 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-02 19:47 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-02 19:57 ` Chris Murphy
2016-01-02 19:56 ` Chris Murphy
2016-01-02 19:58 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-02 20:15 ` Chris Murphy
2016-01-02 20:32 ` Chris Murphy
2016-01-02 20:39 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-02 21:28 ` Chris Murphy
2016-01-02 21:30 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-02 21:37 ` Chris Murphy
2016-01-02 21:42 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-02 22:46 ` Chris Murphy
2016-01-03 10:29 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
2016-01-06 6:45 ` Duncan
2016-01-06 11:04 ` Rasmus Abrahamsen
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.