On 2019/12/31 下午11:04, Ole Langbehn wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have done three full balances in a row, each of them ending with an
> error, telling me:
> 
> BTRFS info (device nvme1n1p1): 2 enospc errors during balance
> BTRFS info (device nvme1n1p1): balance: ended with status: -28
> 
> (first balance run it was 4 enospc errors).
> 
> The filesystem has enough space to spare, though:
> 
> # btrfs fi show /
> Label: none  uuid: 34ea0387-af9a-43b3-b7cc-7bdf7b37b8f1
>         Total devices 1 FS bytes used 624.36GiB
>         devid    1 size 931.51GiB used 627.03GiB path /dev/nvme1n1p1
> 
> # btrfs fi df /
> Data, single: total=614.00GiB, used=613.72GiB
> System, single: total=32.00MiB, used=112.00KiB
> Metadata, single: total=13.00GiB, used=10.64GiB
> GlobalReserve, single: total=512.00MiB, used=0.00B
> 
> This is after the balances, but was about the same before the balances.
> Before them, data had about 50GB diff between total and used.
> 
> The volume contains subvolumes (/ and /home) and snapshots (around 20
> per subvolume, 40 total, oldest 1 month old).
> 
> My questions are:
> 
> 1. why do I get enospc errors on a device that has enough spare space?

A known bug in v5.4, where extra space check in relocation doesn't match
the new metadata over-commit.

> 2. is this bad and if yes, how can I fix it?

There are patches for that:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-btrfs/list/?series=208445

> 
> 
> 
> A little more (noteworthy) context, if you're interested:
> 
> The reason I started the first balance was that a df on the filesystem
> showed 0% free space:
> 
> # df
> Filesystem     1K-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on
> /dev/nvme1n1p1 976760584 655217424 	   0 100% /

Another known bug, which we also had a patch for it:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11293419/

Thanks,
Qu

> ...
> 
> and a big download (chromium sources) was aborted due to "not enough
> space on device".
> 
> I monitored the first balance more closely, and right after the start,
> df looked normal again, showing available blocks, but during the
> balance, it flip-flopped a couple of times between again showing 0
> available bytes and showing the complement between actual size and used
> bytes. I did not observe this behavior any more during balance 2 and 3,
> but did not observe as closely.
> 
> TiA for any insights and ideas on how to proceed and a healthy start
> into the new year for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
>