From: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>
To: Qu WenRuo <wqu@suse.com>, "dsterba@suse.cz" <dsterba@suse.cz>,
Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>,
"linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] btrfs: volumes: Allocate degraded chunks if rw devices can't fullfil a chunk
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 20:39:31 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4eb3d18b-b938-c52d-8cc8-c21433c15183@gmx.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <366d5a96-4670-5839-6bef-e8d3a77fd00b@suse.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2591 bytes --]
On 2019/11/28 下午8:30, Qu WenRuo wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/11/28 下午7:24, David Sterba wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 07:36:41AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>> On 2019/11/28 上午3:23, David Sterba wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 06:41:49PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>>> On 2019/11/19 下午6:05, Anand Jain wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/7/19 2:27 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>>>>> [PROBLEM]
>>>>>>> Btrfs degraded mount will fallback to SINGLE profile if there are not
>>>>>>> enough devices:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its better to keep it like this for now until there is a fix for the
>>>>>> write hole. Otherwise hitting the write hole bug in case of degraded
>>>>>> raid1 will be more prevalent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Write hole should be a problem for RAID5/6, not the degraded chunk
>>>>> feature itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, this design will try to avoid allocating chunks using
>>>>> missing devices.
>>>>> So even for 3 devices RAID5, new chunks will be allocated by using
>>>>> existing devices (2 devices RAID5), so no new write hole is introduced.
>>>>
>>>> That this would allow a 2 device raid5 (from expected 3) is similar to
>>>> the reduced chunks, but now hidden because we don't have a detailed
>>>> report for stripes on devices. And rebalance would be needed to make
>>>> sure that's the filesystem is again 3 devices (and 1 device lost
>>>> tolerant).
>>>>
>>>> This is different to the 1 device missing for raid1, where scrub can
>>>> fix that (expected), but the balance is IMHO not.
>>>>
>>>> I'd suggest to allow allocation from missing devices only from the
>>>> profiles with redundancy. For now.
>>>
>>> But RAID5 itself supports 2 devices, right?
>>> And even 2 devices RAID5 can still tolerant 1 missing device.
>>
>>> The tolerance hasn't changed in that case, just unbalanced disk usage then.
>>
>> Ah right, the constraints are still fine. That the usage is unbalanced
>> is something I'd still consider a problem because it's silently changing
>> the layout from the one that was set by user.
>>
>> As there are two conflicting ways to continue from the missing device state:
>>
>> - try to use remaining devices to allow writes but change the layout
>> - don't allow writes, let user/admin sort it out
>>
>> I'd rather have more time to understand the implications and try to
>> experiment with that.
>>
> Ah, makes sense.
>
> So no need for a new version.
>
> Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
>
> Thanks,
> Qu
>
Facepalm, that's for another thread....
Reviewing patch from myself, WTF....
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-28 12:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-07 6:27 [PATCH 0/3] btrfs: More intelligent degraded chunk allocator Qu Wenruo
2019-11-07 6:27 ` [PATCH 1/3] btrfs: volumes: Refactor device holes gathering into a separate function Qu Wenruo
2019-11-07 9:20 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2019-11-07 9:33 ` Qu Wenruo
2019-11-07 9:45 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2019-11-07 6:27 ` [PATCH 2/3] btrfs: volumes: Add btrfs_fs_devices::missing_list to collect missing devices Qu Wenruo
2019-11-07 9:31 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2019-11-19 10:03 ` Anand Jain
2019-11-19 10:29 ` Qu Wenruo
2019-11-27 19:36 ` David Sterba
2019-11-07 6:27 ` [PATCH 3/3] btrfs: volumes: Allocate degraded chunks if rw devices can't fullfil a chunk Qu Wenruo
2019-11-19 10:05 ` Anand Jain
2019-11-19 10:41 ` Qu Wenruo
2019-11-27 19:23 ` David Sterba
2019-11-27 23:36 ` Qu Wenruo
2019-11-28 11:24 ` David Sterba
2019-11-28 12:29 ` Qu Wenruo
2019-11-28 12:30 ` Qu WenRuo
2019-11-28 12:39 ` Qu Wenruo [this message]
2019-11-18 20:18 ` [PATCH 0/3] btrfs: More intelligent degraded chunk allocator David Sterba
2019-11-18 23:32 ` Qu Wenruo
2019-11-19 5:18 ` Alberto Bursi
2019-11-27 19:26 ` David Sterba
2019-12-02 3:22 ` Zygo Blaxell
2019-12-02 4:41 ` Qu Wenruo
2019-12-02 19:27 ` Zygo Blaxell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly 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=4eb3d18b-b938-c52d-8cc8-c21433c15183@gmx.com \
--to=quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com \
--cc=anand.jain@oracle.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wqu@suse.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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).