On 2019/9/9 上午10:55, zedlryqc@server53.web-hosting.com wrote:
> Hello everyone!
> 
[...]
>  
> 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?

>  
> - To be performed by creating a new btrfs filesystem in the destination
> partition <partition name>, with a new GUID.

I'd say current send/receive is more flex.
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.


> - All data from the source filesystem <filesystem name> is than copied
> to the destination partition, similar to how RAID1 works.
> - The size of the destination partition must be sufficient to hold the
> used data from the source filesystem, otherwise the operation fails. The
> point is that the destination doesn't have to be as large as source,
> just sufficient to hold the data (of course, many details and concerns
> are skipped in this short proposal)

All can be done already by send/receive, although at subvolume level.

Please check if send/receive is suitable for your use case.

[...]
>  
> 2) Sensible defrag
> The defrag is currently a joke. If you use defrag than you better not
> use subvolumes/snapshots. That's... very… hard to tolerate. Quite a
> necessary feature. I mean, defrag is an operation that should be
> performed in many circumstances, and in many cases it is even
> automatically initiated. But, btrfs defrag is virtually unusable. And,
> it is unusable where it is most needed, as the presence of subvolumes
> will, predictably, increase fragmentation by quite a lot.
>  
> 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.

>  
> - The defrag should work by doing a full defrag of one 'selected
> subvolume' (which can be selected by user, or it can be guessed because
> the user probably wants to defrag the currently mounted subvolume, or
> default subvolume). The other subvolumes should than share data (shared
> extents) with the 'selected subvolume' (as much as possible).

What's wrong with current file based defrag?
If you want to defrag a subvolume, just iterate through all files.

>  
> - 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.

>  
> Deduplication is a different task.
>  
> 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.
>  
> Can you do something like "btrfs delete", but such that it also
> simultaneously converts to 'single', or some other chosen RAID level?

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)

I still prefer the safer allocate-new-chunk way to convert chunks, even
at a cost of extra IO.

Thanks,
Qu

>  
> ## I hope that you will consider my suggestions, I hope that I'm helpful
> (although, I guess, the short time I spent working with btrfs and
> writing this mail can not compare with the amount of work you are
> putting into it). Perhaps, teams sometimes need a different perspective,
> outsiders perspective, in order to better understand the situation.
>  
> So long!
>