From: firstname.lastname@example.org To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Feature requests: online backup - defrag - change RAID level Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 07:25:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20190909072518.Horde.c4SobsfDkO6FUtKo3e_kKu0@server53.web-hosting.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Quoting Qu Wenruo <email@example.com>: >> 1) Full online backup (or copy, whatever you want to call it) >> btrfs backup <filesystem name> <partition name> [-f] >> - backups a btrfs filesystem given by <filesystem name> to a partition >> <partition name> (with all subvolumes). > > Why not just btrfs send? > > Or you want to keep the whole subvolume structures/layout? Yes, I want to keep the whole subvolume structures/layout. I want to keep everything. Usually, when I want to backup a partition, I want to keep everything, and I suppose most other people have a similar idea. > I'd say current send/receive is more flex. Um, 'flexibility' has nothing to do with it. Send/receive is a completely different use case. So, each one has some benefits and some drawbacks, but 'send/receive' cannot replace 'full online backup' Here is where send/receive is lacking: - too complicated to do if many subvolumes are involved - may require recursive subvolume enumeration in order to emulate 'full online backup' - may require extra storage space - is not mountable, not easy to browse the backup contents - not easy to recover just a few selected files from backup There's probably more things where send/receive is lacking, but I think I have given sufficient number of important differences which show that send/receive cannot successfully replace the functionality of 'full online backup'. > And you also needs to understand btrfs also integrates volume > management, thus it's not just <partition name>, you also needs RAID > level and things like that. This is a minor point. So, please, let's not get into too many irrelevant details here. There can be a sensible default to 'single data, DUP metadata', and a way for a user to override this default, but that feature is not-so-important. If the user wants to change the RAID level, he can easily do it later by mounting the backup. > > All can be done already by send/receive, although at subvolume level. Yeah, maybe I should manually type it all for all subvolumes, one by one. Also must be carefull to do it in the correct order if I want it not to consume extra space. And the backup is not mountable. This proposal (workaround) of yours appears to me as too complicated, too error prone, missing important features. But, I just thought, you can actually emulate 'full online backup' with this send/receive. Here is how. You do a script which does the following: - makes a temporary snapshot of every subvolume - use 'btrfs send' to send all the temporary snapshots, on-the-fly (maybe via pipe), in the correct order, to a proces running a 'brtfs receive', which should then immediately write it all to the destination partition. All the buffers can stay in-memory. - when all the snapshots are received and written to destination, fix subvol IDs - delete temporary snapshots from source Of course, this script should then be a part of standard btrfs tools. > Please check if send/receive is suitable for your use case. No. Absolutely not. >> 2) Sensible defrag >> The defrag is currently a joke. >> How to do it: >> - The extents must not be unshared, but just shuffled a bit. Unsharing >> the extents is, in most situations, not tolerable. > I definitely see cases unsharing extents makes sense, so at least we > should let user to determine what they want. Maybe there are such cases, but I would say that a vast majority of users (99,99%) in a vast majority of cases (99,99%) don't want the defrag operation to reduce free disk space. > What's wrong with current file based defrag? > If you want to defrag a subvolume, just iterate through all files. I repeat: The defrag should not decrease free space. That's the 'normal' expectation. >> - I think it would be wrong to use a general deduplication algorithm for >> this. Instead, the information about the shared extents should be >> analyzed given the starting state of the filesystem, and than the >> algorithm should produce an optimal solution based on the currently >> shared extents. > > Please be more specific, like giving an example for it. Let's say that there is a file FFF with extents e11, e12, e13, e22, e23, e33, e34 - in subvolA the file FFF consists of e11, e12, e13 - in subvolB the file FFF consists of e11, e22, e23 - in subvolC the file FFF consists of e11, e22, e33, e34 After defrag, where 'selected subvolume' is subvolC, the extents are ordered on disk as follows: e11,e22,e33,e34 - e23 - e12,e13 In the list above, the comma denotes neighbouring extents, the dash indicates that there can be a possible gap. As you can see in the list, the file FFF is fully defragmented in subvolC, since its extents are occupying neighbouring disk sectors. >> 3) Downgrade to 'single' or 'DUP' (also, general easy way to switch >> between RAID levels) >> Currently, as much as I gather, user has to do a "btrfs balance start >> -dconvert=single -mconvert=single >> ", than delete a drive, which is a bit ridiculous sequence of operations. > That's a shortcut for chunk profile change. > My first idea of this is, it could cause more problem than benefit. > (It only benefits profile downgrade, thus only makes sense for > RAID1->SINGLE, DUP->SINGLE, and RAID10->RAID0, nothing else) Those listed cases are exactly the ones I judge to be most important. Three important cases. > I still prefer the safer allocate-new-chunk way to convert chunks, even > at a cost of extra IO. I don't mind whether it allocates new chunks or not. It is better, in my opinion, if new chunks are not allocated, but both ways are essentially OK. What I am complaining about is that at one point in time, after issuing the command: btrfs balance start -dconvert=single -mconvert=single and before issuing the 'btrfs delete', the system could be in a too fragile state, with extents unnecesarily spread out over two drives, which is both a completely unnecessary operation, and it also seems to me that it could be dangerous in some situations involving potentially malfunctioning drives. Please reconsider.
next prev parent reply index Thread overview: 111+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-09-09 2:55 zedlryqc 2019-09-09 3:51 ` Qu Wenruo 2019-09-09 11:25 ` zedlryqc [this message] 2019-09-09 12:18 ` Qu Wenruo 2019-09-09 12:28 ` Qu Wenruo 2019-09-09 17:11 ` webmaster 2019-09-10 17:39 ` Andrei Borzenkov 2019-09-10 22:41 ` webmaster 2019-09-09 15:29 ` Graham Cobb 2019-09-09 17:24 ` Remi Gauvin 2019-09-09 19:26 ` webmaster 2019-09-10 19:22 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn 2019-09-10 23:32 ` webmaster 2019-09-11 12:02 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn 2019-09-11 16:26 ` Zygo Blaxell 2019-09-11 17:20 ` webmaster 2019-09-11 18:19 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn 2019-09-11 20:01 ` webmaster 2019-09-11 21:42 ` Zygo Blaxell 2019-09-13 1:33 ` General Zed 2019-09-11 21:37 ` webmaster 2019-09-12 11:31 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn 2019-09-12 19:18 ` webmaster 2019-09-12 19:44 ` Chris Murphy 2019-09-12 21:34 ` General Zed 2019-09-12 22:28 ` Chris Murphy 2019-09-12 22:57 ` General Zed 2019-09-12 23:54 ` Zygo Blaxell 2019-09-13 0:26 ` General Zed 2019-09-13 3:12 ` Zygo Blaxell 2019-09-13 5:05 ` General Zed 2019-09-14 0:56 ` Zygo Blaxell 2019-09-14 1:50 ` General Zed 2019-09-14 4:42 ` Zygo Blaxell 2019-09-14 4:53 ` Zygo Blaxell 2019-09-15 17:54 ` General Zed 2019-09-16 22:51 ` Zygo Blaxell 2019-09-17 1:03 ` General Zed 2019-09-17 1:34 ` General Zed 2019-09-17 1:44 ` Chris Murphy 2019-09-17 4:55 ` Zygo Blaxell 2019-09-17 4:19 ` Zygo Blaxell 2019-09-17 3:10 ` General Zed 2019-09-17 4:05 ` General Zed 2019-09-14 1:56 ` General Zed 2019-09-13 5:22 ` General Zed 2019-09-13 6:16 ` General Zed 2019-09-13 6:58 ` General Zed 2019-09-13 9:25 ` General Zed 2019-09-13 17:02 ` General Zed 2019-09-14 0:59 ` Zygo Blaxell 2019-09-14 1:28 ` General Zed 2019-09-14 4:28 ` Zygo Blaxell 2019-09-15 18:05 ` General Zed 2019-09-16 23:05 ` Zygo Blaxell 2019-09-13 7:51 ` General Zed 2019-09-13 11:04 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn 2019-09-13 20:43 ` Zygo Blaxell 2019-09-14 0:20 ` General Zed 2019-09-14 18:29 ` Chris Murphy 2019-09-14 23:39 ` Zygo Blaxell 2019-09-13 11:09 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn 2019-09-13 17:20 ` General Zed 2019-09-13 18:20 ` General Zed 2019-09-12 19:54 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn 2019-09-12 22:21 ` General Zed 2019-09-13 11:53 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn 2019-09-13 16:54 ` General Zed 2019-09-13 18:29 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn 2019-09-13 19:40 ` General Zed 2019-09-14 15:10 ` Jukka Larja 2019-09-12 22:47 ` General Zed 2019-09-11 21:37 ` Zygo Blaxell 2019-09-11 23:21 ` webmaster 2019-09-12 0:10 ` Remi Gauvin 2019-09-12 3:05 ` webmaster 2019-09-12 3:30 ` Remi Gauvin 2019-09-12 3:33 ` Remi Gauvin 2019-09-12 5:19 ` Zygo Blaxell 2019-09-12 21:23 ` General Zed 2019-09-14 4:12 ` Zygo Blaxell 2019-09-16 11:42 ` General Zed 2019-09-17 0:49 ` Zygo Blaxell 2019-09-17 2:30 ` General Zed 2019-09-17 5:30 ` Zygo Blaxell 2019-09-17 10:07 ` General Zed 2019-09-17 23:40 ` Zygo Blaxell 2019-09-18 4:37 ` General Zed 2019-09-18 18:00 ` Zygo Blaxell 2019-09-10 23:58 ` webmaster 2019-09-09 23:24 ` Qu Wenruo 2019-09-09 23:25 ` webmaster 2019-09-09 16:38 ` webmaster 2019-09-09 23:44 ` Qu Wenruo 2019-09-10 0:00 ` Chris Murphy 2019-09-10 0:51 ` Qu Wenruo 2019-09-10 0:06 ` webmaster 2019-09-10 0:48 ` Qu Wenruo 2019-09-10 1:24 ` webmaster 2019-09-10 1:48 ` Qu Wenruo 2019-09-10 3:32 ` webmaster 2019-09-10 14:14 ` Nikolay Borisov 2019-09-10 22:35 ` webmaster 2019-09-11 6:40 ` Nikolay Borisov 2019-09-10 22:48 ` webmaster 2019-09-10 23:14 ` webmaster 2019-09-11 0:26 ` webmaster 2019-09-11 0:36 ` webmaster 2019-09-11 1:00 ` webmaster 2019-09-10 11:12 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn 2019-09-09 3:12 webmaster
Reply instructions: You may reply publically 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=20190909072518.Horde.c4SobsfDkO6FUtKo3e_kKu0@server53.web-hosting.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ /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
Linux-BTRFS Archive on lore.kernel.org Archives are clonable: git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/0 linux-btrfs/git/0.git # If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may # initialize and index your mirror using the following commands: public-inbox-init -V2 linux-btrfs linux-btrfs/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs \ firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com public-inbox-index linux-btrfs Example config snippet for mirrors Newsgroup available over NNTP: nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-btrfs AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox