* RAID 6 full, but there is still space left on some devices
@ 2016-02-16 20:20 Dan Blazejewski
2016-02-17 4:28 ` Duncan
2016-02-17 5:58 ` Qu Wenruo
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Dan Blazejewski @ 2016-02-16 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw
To: linux-btrfs
Hello,
I've searched high and low about my issue, but have been unable to
turn up anything like what I'm seeing right now.
A little background: I started using BTRFS over a year ago, in RAID 1
with mixed size drives. A few months ago, I started replacing the
disks with 4 TB drives, and eventually switched over to RAID 6. I am
currently running a 6x4TB RAID6 drive configuration, which should give
me ~14.5 TB
usable, but I'm only getting around 11.
The weird thing is that It seems to completely fill 4/6 of the disks,
while leaving lots of space free on 2 of the disks. I've tried full
filesystem balances, yet the problem continues.
# btrfs fi show
Label: none uuid: 78733087-d597-4301-8efa-8e1df800b108
Total devices 6 FS bytes used 11.59TiB
devid 1 size 3.64TiB used 3.64TiB path /dev/sdd
devid 2 size 3.64TiB used 3.64TiB path /dev/sdg
devid 3 size 3.64TiB used 3.64TiB path /dev/sdf
devid 5 size 3.64TiB used 2.92TiB path /dev/sda
devid 6 size 3.64TiB used 1.48TiB path /dev/sdb
devid 7 size 3.64TiB used 3.64TiB path /dev/sdc
btrfs-progs v4.2.3
# btrfs fi df /mnt/data
Data, RAID6: total=11.67TiB, used=11.58TiB
System, RAID6: total=64.00MiB, used=1.70MiB
Metadata, RAID6: total=15.58GiB, used=13.89GiB
GlobalReserve, single: total=512.00MiB, used=0.00B
dan@Morpheus:/mnt/data/temp$ sudo btrfs fi usage /mnt/data
# btrfs fi usage /mnt/data
WARNING: RAID56 detected, not implemented
WARNING: RAID56 detected, not implemented
WARNING: RAID56 detected, not implemented
Overall:
Device size: 21.83TiB
Device allocated: 0.00B
Device unallocated: 21.83TiB
Device missing: 0.00B
Used: 0.00B
Free (estimated): 0.00B (min: 8.00EiB)
Data ratio: 0.00
Metadata ratio: 0.00
Global reserve: 512.00MiB (used: 0.00B)
Data,RAID6: Size:11.67TiB, Used:11.58TiB
/dev/sda 2.92TiB
/dev/sdb 1.48TiB
/dev/sdc 3.63TiB
/dev/sdd 3.63TiB
/dev/sdf 3.63TiB
/dev/sdg 3.63TiB
Metadata,RAID6: Size:15.58GiB, Used:13.89GiB
/dev/sda 4.05GiB
/dev/sdb 1.50GiB
/dev/sdc 5.01GiB
/dev/sdd 5.01GiB
/dev/sdf 5.01GiB
/dev/sdg 5.01GiB
System,RAID6: Size:64.00MiB, Used:1.70MiB
/dev/sda 16.00MiB
/dev/sdb 16.00MiB
/dev/sdc 16.00MiB
/dev/sdd 16.00MiB
/dev/sdf 16.00MiB
/dev/sdg 16.00MiB
Unallocated:
/dev/sda 733.65GiB
/dev/sdb 2.15TiB
/dev/sdc 1.02MiB
/dev/sdd 1.02MiB
/dev/sdf 1.02MiB
/dev/sdg 1.02MiB
Can anyone shed some light on why a full balance (sudo btrfs balance
start /mnt/data) doesnt seem to straighten this out? Any and all help
is appreciated.
Thanks!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: RAID 6 full, but there is still space left on some devices
2016-02-16 20:20 RAID 6 full, but there is still space left on some devices Dan Blazejewski
@ 2016-02-17 4:28 ` Duncan
2016-02-17 5:58 ` Qu Wenruo
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Duncan @ 2016-02-17 4:28 UTC (permalink / raw
To: linux-btrfs
Dan Blazejewski posted on Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:20:12 -0500 as excerpted:
> A little background: I started using BTRFS over a year ago, in RAID 1
> with mixed size drives. A few months ago, I started replacing the disks
> with 4 TB drives, and eventually switched over to RAID 6. I am currently
> running a 6x4TB RAID6 drive configuration, which should give me ~14.5 TB
> usable, but I'm only getting around 11.
>
> The weird thing is that It seems to completely fill 4/6 of the disks,
> while leaving lots of space free on 2 of the disks. I've tried full
> filesystem balances, yet the problem continues.
>
> # btrfs fi show
>
> Label: none uuid: 78733087-d597-4301-8efa-8e1df800b108
> Total devices 6 FS bytes used 11.59TiB
> devid 1 size 3.64TiB used 3.64TiB path /dev/sdd
> devid 2 size 3.64TiB used 3.64TiB path /dev/sdg
> devid 3 size 3.64TiB used 3.64TiB path /dev/sdf
> devid 5 size 3.64TiB used 2.92TiB path /dev/sda
> devid 6 size 3.64TiB used 1.48TiB path /dev/sdb
> devid 7 size 3.64TiB used 3.64TiB path /dev/sdc
>
> btrfs-progs v4.2.3
>
>
>
> # btrfs fi df /mnt/data
>
> Data, RAID6: total=11.67TiB, used=11.58TiB
> System, RAID6: total=64.00MiB, used=1.70MiB
> Metadata, RAID6: total=15.58GiB, used=13.89GiB
> GlobalReserve, single: total=512.00MiB, used=0.00B
>
> # btrfs fi usage /mnt/data
>
> WARNING: RAID56 detected, not implemented
Your btrfs-progs is old and I don't see any indication of kernel version
at all, but I'll guess it's old as well. Particularly for raid56 mode,
which still isn't to the maturity level of the rest of btrfs, using
current kernel and btrfs-progs is *very* strongly recommended.
Among other things, current userspace 4.4 btrfs fi usage should support
raid56 mode properly, now. Also, with newer userspace and kernel, btrfs
balance supports the stripes= filter, which appears to be what you're
looking for, to rebalance to full-width stripes anything that's not yet
full width, thereby evening out your usage.
A full balance /should/ do it as well, I believe, but with raid56 support
still not yet at the maturity level of btrfs in general, it's likely your
version is old and buggy in that regard.
--
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] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: RAID 6 full, but there is still space left on some devices
2016-02-16 20:20 RAID 6 full, but there is still space left on some devices Dan Blazejewski
2016-02-17 4:28 ` Duncan
@ 2016-02-17 5:58 ` Qu Wenruo
[not found] ` <CABmr4wVvjB7vGDsZWyCd222E1D-+kmk2SS2XwH2dp+K6YWWe=A@mail.gmail.com>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Qu Wenruo @ 2016-02-17 5:58 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Dan Blazejewski, linux-btrfs
Dan Blazejewski wrote on 2016/02/16 15:20 -0500:
> Hello,
>
> I've searched high and low about my issue, but have been unable to
> turn up anything like what I'm seeing right now.
>
> A little background: I started using BTRFS over a year ago, in RAID 1
> with mixed size drives. A few months ago, I started replacing the
> disks with 4 TB drives, and eventually switched over to RAID 6. I am
> currently running a 6x4TB RAID6 drive configuration, which should give
> me ~14.5 TB
> usable, but I'm only getting around 11.
>
> The weird thing is that It seems to completely fill 4/6 of the disks,
> while leaving lots of space free on 2 of the disks. I've tried full
> filesystem balances, yet the problem continues.
>
> # btrfs fi show
>
> Label: none uuid: 78733087-d597-4301-8efa-8e1df800b108
> Total devices 6 FS bytes used 11.59TiB
> devid 1 size 3.64TiB used 3.64TiB path /dev/sdd
> devid 2 size 3.64TiB used 3.64TiB path /dev/sdg
> devid 3 size 3.64TiB used 3.64TiB path /dev/sdf
> devid 5 size 3.64TiB used 2.92TiB path /dev/sda
> devid 6 size 3.64TiB used 1.48TiB path /dev/sdb
> devid 7 size 3.64TiB used 3.64TiB path /dev/sdc
>
> btrfs-progs v4.2.3
Your space really used up, as it can't found *at least 4* disk with
enough space to allocate a new chunk.
As 4 devices in your array is already filled, the rest 2 is of no means
for RAID6, and can only be allocated with Single/RAID1/RAID0.
But the real problem is, why your devices get such a unbalanced layout.
Normally, for RAID5/6, it will allocate chunks using all disk with
available space, and since all your devices are in the same size, it
should result very balanced allocation.
How did you convert to current RAID6? Did it involves balance from
already some used disks?
Thanks,
Qu
>
>
>
> # btrfs fi df /mnt/data
>
> Data, RAID6: total=11.67TiB, used=11.58TiB
> System, RAID6: total=64.00MiB, used=1.70MiB
> Metadata, RAID6: total=15.58GiB, used=13.89GiB
> GlobalReserve, single: total=512.00MiB, used=0.00B
> dan@Morpheus:/mnt/data/temp$ sudo btrfs fi usage /mnt/data
>
>
>
> # btrfs fi usage /mnt/data
>
> WARNING: RAID56 detected, not implemented
> WARNING: RAID56 detected, not implemented
> WARNING: RAID56 detected, not implemented
> Overall:
> Device size: 21.83TiB
> Device allocated: 0.00B
> Device unallocated: 21.83TiB
> Device missing: 0.00B
> Used: 0.00B
> Free (estimated): 0.00B (min: 8.00EiB)
> Data ratio: 0.00
> Metadata ratio: 0.00
> Global reserve: 512.00MiB (used: 0.00B)
>
> Data,RAID6: Size:11.67TiB, Used:11.58TiB
> /dev/sda 2.92TiB
> /dev/sdb 1.48TiB
> /dev/sdc 3.63TiB
> /dev/sdd 3.63TiB
> /dev/sdf 3.63TiB
> /dev/sdg 3.63TiB
>
> Metadata,RAID6: Size:15.58GiB, Used:13.89GiB
> /dev/sda 4.05GiB
> /dev/sdb 1.50GiB
> /dev/sdc 5.01GiB
> /dev/sdd 5.01GiB
> /dev/sdf 5.01GiB
> /dev/sdg 5.01GiB
>
> System,RAID6: Size:64.00MiB, Used:1.70MiB
> /dev/sda 16.00MiB
> /dev/sdb 16.00MiB
> /dev/sdc 16.00MiB
> /dev/sdd 16.00MiB
> /dev/sdf 16.00MiB
> /dev/sdg 16.00MiB
>
> Unallocated:
> /dev/sda 733.65GiB
> /dev/sdb 2.15TiB
> /dev/sdc 1.02MiB
> /dev/sdd 1.02MiB
> /dev/sdf 1.02MiB
> /dev/sdg 1.02MiB
>
>
>
>
> Can anyone shed some light on why a full balance (sudo btrfs balance
> start /mnt/data) doesnt seem to straighten this out? Any and all help
> is appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks!
> --
> 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] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: RAID 6 full, but there is still space left on some devices
[not found] ` <CABmr4wVvjB7vGDsZWyCd222E1D-+kmk2SS2XwH2dp+K6YWWe=A@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2016-02-18 2:03 ` Qu Wenruo
2016-02-18 23:27 ` Henk Slager
2016-02-19 0:01 ` Dan Blazejewski
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Qu Wenruo @ 2016-02-18 2:03 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Dan Blazejewski, btrfs
Dan Blazejewski wrote on 2016/02/17 18:04 -0500:
> Hello,
>
> I upgraded my kernel to 4.4.2, and btrfs-progs to 4.4. I also added
> another 4TB disk and kicked off a full balance (currently 7x4TB
> RAID6). I'm interested to see what an additional drive will do to
> this. I'll also have to wait and see if a full system balance on a
> newer version of BTRFS tools does the trick or not.
>
> I also noticed that "btrfs device usage" shows multiple entries for
> Data, RAID 6 on some drives. Is this normal? Please note that /dev/sdh
> is the new disk, and I only just started the balance.
>
> # btrfs dev usage /mnt/data
> /dev/sda, ID: 5
> Device size: 3.64TiB
> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
> Unallocated: 733.67GiB
>
> /dev/sdb, ID: 6
> Device size: 3.64TiB
> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
> Unallocated: 2.15TiB
>
> /dev/sdc, ID: 7
> Device size: 3.64TiB
> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>
> /dev/sdd, ID: 1
> Device size: 3.64TiB
> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>
> /dev/sdf, ID: 3
> Device size: 3.64TiB
> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>
> /dev/sdg, ID: 2
> Device size: 3.64TiB
> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>
> /dev/sdh, ID: 8
> Device size: 3.64TiB
> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
> Unallocated: 3.64TiB
>
Not sure how that multiple chunk type shows up.
Maybe all these shown RAID6 has different number of stripes?
>
>
> Qu, in regards to your question, I ran RAID 1 on multiple disks of
> different sizes. I believe I had a mix of 2x4TB, 1x2TB, and 1x3TB
> drive. I replaced the 2TB drive first with a 4TB, and balanced it.
> Later on, I replaced the 3TB drive with another 4TB, and balanced,
> yielding an array of 4x4TB RAID1. A little while later, I wound up
> sticking a fifth 4TB drive in, and converting to RAID6. The sixth 4TB
> drive was added some time after that. The seventh was added just a few
> minutes ago.
Personally speaking, I just came up to one method to balance all these
disks, and in fact you don't need to add a disk.
1) Balance all data chunk to single profile
2) Balance all metadata chunk to single or RAID1 profile
3) Balance all data chunk back to RAID6 profile
4) Balance all metadata chunk back to RAID6 profile
System chunk is so small that normally you don't need to bother.
The trick is, as single is the most flex chunk type, only needs one disk
with unallocated space.
And btrfs chunk allocater will allocate chunk to device with most
unallocated space.
So after 1) and 2) you should found that chunk allocation is almost
perfectly balanced across all devices, as long as they are in same size.
Now you have a balance base layout for RAID6 allocation. Should make
things go quite smooth and result a balanced RAID6 chunk layout.
Thanks,
Qu
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dan Blazejewski wrote on 2016/02/16 15:20 -0500:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I've searched high and low about my issue, but have been unable to
>>> turn up anything like what I'm seeing right now.
>>>
>>> A little background: I started using BTRFS over a year ago, in RAID 1
>>> with mixed size drives. A few months ago, I started replacing the
>>> disks with 4 TB drives, and eventually switched over to RAID 6. I am
>>> currently running a 6x4TB RAID6 drive configuration, which should give
>>> me ~14.5 TB
>>> usable, but I'm only getting around 11.
>>>
>>> The weird thing is that It seems to completely fill 4/6 of the disks,
>>> while leaving lots of space free on 2 of the disks. I've tried full
>>> filesystem balances, yet the problem continues.
>>>
>>> # btrfs fi show
>>>
>>> Label: none uuid: 78733087-d597-4301-8efa-8e1df800b108
>>> Total devices 6 FS bytes used 11.59TiB
>>> devid 1 size 3.64TiB used 3.64TiB path /dev/sdd
>>> devid 2 size 3.64TiB used 3.64TiB path /dev/sdg
>>> devid 3 size 3.64TiB used 3.64TiB path /dev/sdf
>>> devid 5 size 3.64TiB used 2.92TiB path /dev/sda
>>> devid 6 size 3.64TiB used 1.48TiB path /dev/sdb
>>> devid 7 size 3.64TiB used 3.64TiB path /dev/sdc
>>>
>>> btrfs-progs v4.2.3
>>
>>
>> Your space really used up, as it can't found *at least 4* disk with enough
>> space to allocate a new chunk.
>> As 4 devices in your array is already filled, the rest 2 is of no means for
>> RAID6, and can only be allocated with Single/RAID1/RAID0.
>>
>>
>> But the real problem is, why your devices get such a unbalanced layout.
>>
>> Normally, for RAID5/6, it will allocate chunks using all disk with available
>> space, and since all your devices are in the same size, it should result
>> very balanced allocation.
>>
>> How did you convert to current RAID6? Did it involves balance from already
>> some used disks?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Qu
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> # btrfs fi df /mnt/data
>>>
>>> Data, RAID6: total=11.67TiB, used=11.58TiB
>>> System, RAID6: total=64.00MiB, used=1.70MiB
>>> Metadata, RAID6: total=15.58GiB, used=13.89GiB
>>> GlobalReserve, single: total=512.00MiB, used=0.00B
>>> dan@Morpheus:/mnt/data/temp$ sudo btrfs fi usage /mnt/data
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> # btrfs fi usage /mnt/data
>>>
>>> WARNING: RAID56 detected, not implemented
>>> WARNING: RAID56 detected, not implemented
>>> WARNING: RAID56 detected, not implemented
>>> Overall:
>>> Device size: 21.83TiB
>>> Device allocated: 0.00B
>>> Device unallocated: 21.83TiB
>>> Device missing: 0.00B
>>> Used: 0.00B
>>> Free (estimated): 0.00B (min: 8.00EiB)
>>> Data ratio: 0.00
>>> Metadata ratio: 0.00
>>> Global reserve: 512.00MiB (used: 0.00B)
>>>
>>> Data,RAID6: Size:11.67TiB, Used:11.58TiB
>>> /dev/sda 2.92TiB
>>> /dev/sdb 1.48TiB
>>> /dev/sdc 3.63TiB
>>> /dev/sdd 3.63TiB
>>> /dev/sdf 3.63TiB
>>> /dev/sdg 3.63TiB
>>>
>>> Metadata,RAID6: Size:15.58GiB, Used:13.89GiB
>>> /dev/sda 4.05GiB
>>> /dev/sdb 1.50GiB
>>> /dev/sdc 5.01GiB
>>> /dev/sdd 5.01GiB
>>> /dev/sdf 5.01GiB
>>> /dev/sdg 5.01GiB
>>>
>>> System,RAID6: Size:64.00MiB, Used:1.70MiB
>>> /dev/sda 16.00MiB
>>> /dev/sdb 16.00MiB
>>> /dev/sdc 16.00MiB
>>> /dev/sdd 16.00MiB
>>> /dev/sdf 16.00MiB
>>> /dev/sdg 16.00MiB
>>>
>>> Unallocated:
>>> /dev/sda 733.65GiB
>>> /dev/sdb 2.15TiB
>>> /dev/sdc 1.02MiB
>>> /dev/sdd 1.02MiB
>>> /dev/sdf 1.02MiB
>>> /dev/sdg 1.02MiB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can anyone shed some light on why a full balance (sudo btrfs balance
>>> start /mnt/data) doesnt seem to straighten this out? Any and all help
>>> is appreciated.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: RAID 6 full, but there is still space left on some devices
2016-02-18 2:03 ` Qu Wenruo
@ 2016-02-18 23:27 ` Henk Slager
2016-02-19 1:36 ` Qu Wenruo
2016-02-19 0:01 ` Dan Blazejewski
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Henk Slager @ 2016-02-18 23:27 UTC (permalink / raw
To: btrfs
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:03 AM, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dan Blazejewski wrote on 2016/02/17 18:04 -0500:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I upgraded my kernel to 4.4.2, and btrfs-progs to 4.4. I also added
>> another 4TB disk and kicked off a full balance (currently 7x4TB
>> RAID6). I'm interested to see what an additional drive will do to
>> this. I'll also have to wait and see if a full system balance on a
>> newer version of BTRFS tools does the trick or not.
>>
>> I also noticed that "btrfs device usage" shows multiple entries for
>> Data, RAID 6 on some drives. Is this normal? Please note that /dev/sdh
>> is the new disk, and I only just started the balance.
>>
>> # btrfs dev usage /mnt/data
>> /dev/sda, ID: 5
>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>> Unallocated: 733.67GiB
>>
>> /dev/sdb, ID: 6
>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>> Unallocated: 2.15TiB
>>
>> /dev/sdc, ID: 7
>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>>
>> /dev/sdd, ID: 1
>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>>
>> /dev/sdf, ID: 3
>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>>
>> /dev/sdg, ID: 2
>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>>
>> /dev/sdh, ID: 8
>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>> Unallocated: 3.64TiB
>>
>
> Not sure how that multiple chunk type shows up.
> Maybe all these shown RAID6 has different number of stripes?
Indeed, its 4 different sets of stripe-widths, i.e. how many drives is
striped accross. Someone has suggested to indicate this in the output
of btrfs de us comand some time ago.
The fs has only RAID6 profile and I am not fully sure if the
'Unallocated' numbers are correct (on RAID10 they are 2x too high
with unpatched v4.4 progs), but anyhow the lower devid's are way too
full.
>From the size, one can derive how many devices (or stipe-width):
732.69GiB 4, 1.43TiB 5, 1.48TiB 6, 320.00KiB 7
>> Qu, in regards to your question, I ran RAID 1 on multiple disks of
>> different sizes. I believe I had a mix of 2x4TB, 1x2TB, and 1x3TB
>> drive. I replaced the 2TB drive first with a 4TB, and balanced it.
>> Later on, I replaced the 3TB drive with another 4TB, and balanced,
>> yielding an array of 4x4TB RAID1. A little while later, I wound up
>> sticking a fifth 4TB drive in, and converting to RAID6. The sixth 4TB
>> drive was added some time after that. The seventh was added just a few
>> minutes ago.
>
>
> Personally speaking, I just came up to one method to balance all these
> disks, and in fact you don't need to add a disk.
>
> 1) Balance all data chunk to single profile
> 2) Balance all metadata chunk to single or RAID1 profile
> 3) Balance all data chunk back to RAID6 profile
> 4) Balance all metadata chunk back to RAID6 profile
> System chunk is so small that normally you don't need to bother.
>
> The trick is, as single is the most flex chunk type, only needs one disk
> with unallocated space.
> And btrfs chunk allocater will allocate chunk to device with most
> unallocated space.
>
> So after 1) and 2) you should found that chunk allocation is almost
> perfectly balanced across all devices, as long as they are in same size.
>
> Now you have a balance base layout for RAID6 allocation. Should make things
> go quite smooth and result a balanced RAID6 chunk layout.
This is a good trick to get out of 'the RAID6 full' situation. I have
done some RAID5 tests on 100G VM disks with kernel/tools 4.5-rcX/v4.4,
and various balancing starts, cancels, profile converts etc, worked
surprisingly well, compared to my experience a year back with RAID5
(hitting bugs, crashes).
A RAID6 full balance with this setup might be very slow, even if the
fs would be not so full. The VMs I use are on a mixed SSD/HDD
(bcache'd) array so balancing within the last GB(s), so almost no
workspace, still makes progress. But on HDD only, things can take very
long. The 'Unallocated' space on devid 1 should be at least a few GiB,
otherwise rebalancing will be very slow or just not work.
The way from RAID6 -> single/RAID1 -> RAID6 might also be more
acceptable w.r.t. speed in total. Just watch progress I would say.
Maybe its not needed to do a full convert, just make sure you will
have enough workspace before starting a convert from single/RAID1 to
RAID6 again.
With v4.4 tools, you can do filtered balance based on stripe-width, so
it avoids complete balance again of block groups that are already
allocated across the right amount of devices.
In this case, avoiding the re-balance of the '320.00KiB group' (in the
means time could be much larger) you could do this:
btrfs balance start -v -dstripes=1..6 /mnt/data
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: RAID 6 full, but there is still space left on some devices
2016-02-18 2:03 ` Qu Wenruo
2016-02-18 23:27 ` Henk Slager
@ 2016-02-19 0:01 ` Dan Blazejewski
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Dan Blazejewski @ 2016-02-19 0:01 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Qu Wenruo; +Cc: btrfs
Qu, thanks for your input. I cancelled the existing balance, and
kicked off a balance set to dconvert=single. Should be busy for the
next few days, but I already see the multiple RAID 6 stripes
disappearing, and the chunk distribution across all drives is starting
to normalize. I'll let you know if it works once it's done. Thanks!
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dan Blazejewski wrote on 2016/02/17 18:04 -0500:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I upgraded my kernel to 4.4.2, and btrfs-progs to 4.4. I also added
>> another 4TB disk and kicked off a full balance (currently 7x4TB
>> RAID6). I'm interested to see what an additional drive will do to
>> this. I'll also have to wait and see if a full system balance on a
>> newer version of BTRFS tools does the trick or not.
>>
>> I also noticed that "btrfs device usage" shows multiple entries for
>> Data, RAID 6 on some drives. Is this normal? Please note that /dev/sdh
>> is the new disk, and I only just started the balance.
>>
>> # btrfs dev usage /mnt/data
>> /dev/sda, ID: 5
>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>> Unallocated: 733.67GiB
>>
>> /dev/sdb, ID: 6
>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>> Unallocated: 2.15TiB
>>
>> /dev/sdc, ID: 7
>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>>
>> /dev/sdd, ID: 1
>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>>
>> /dev/sdf, ID: 3
>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>>
>> /dev/sdg, ID: 2
>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>>
>> /dev/sdh, ID: 8
>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>> Unallocated: 3.64TiB
>>
>
> Not sure how that multiple chunk type shows up.
> Maybe all these shown RAID6 has different number of stripes?
>
>>
>>
>> Qu, in regards to your question, I ran RAID 1 on multiple disks of
>> different sizes. I believe I had a mix of 2x4TB, 1x2TB, and 1x3TB
>> drive. I replaced the 2TB drive first with a 4TB, and balanced it.
>> Later on, I replaced the 3TB drive with another 4TB, and balanced,
>> yielding an array of 4x4TB RAID1. A little while later, I wound up
>> sticking a fifth 4TB drive in, and converting to RAID6. The sixth 4TB
>> drive was added some time after that. The seventh was added just a few
>> minutes ago.
>
>
> Personally speaking, I just came up to one method to balance all these
> disks, and in fact you don't need to add a disk.
>
> 1) Balance all data chunk to single profile
> 2) Balance all metadata chunk to single or RAID1 profile
> 3) Balance all data chunk back to RAID6 profile
> 4) Balance all metadata chunk back to RAID6 profile
> System chunk is so small that normally you don't need to bother.
>
> The trick is, as single is the most flex chunk type, only needs one disk
> with unallocated space.
> And btrfs chunk allocater will allocate chunk to device with most
> unallocated space.
>
> So after 1) and 2) you should found that chunk allocation is almost
> perfectly balanced across all devices, as long as they are in same size.
>
> Now you have a balance base layout for RAID6 allocation. Should make things
> go quite smooth and result a balanced RAID6 chunk layout.
>
> Thanks,
> Qu
>
>
>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dan Blazejewski wrote on 2016/02/16 15:20 -0500:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I've searched high and low about my issue, but have been unable to
>>>> turn up anything like what I'm seeing right now.
>>>>
>>>> A little background: I started using BTRFS over a year ago, in RAID 1
>>>> with mixed size drives. A few months ago, I started replacing the
>>>> disks with 4 TB drives, and eventually switched over to RAID 6. I am
>>>> currently running a 6x4TB RAID6 drive configuration, which should give
>>>> me ~14.5 TB
>>>> usable, but I'm only getting around 11.
>>>>
>>>> The weird thing is that It seems to completely fill 4/6 of the disks,
>>>> while leaving lots of space free on 2 of the disks. I've tried full
>>>> filesystem balances, yet the problem continues.
>>>>
>>>> # btrfs fi show
>>>>
>>>> Label: none uuid: 78733087-d597-4301-8efa-8e1df800b108
>>>> Total devices 6 FS bytes used 11.59TiB
>>>> devid 1 size 3.64TiB used 3.64TiB path /dev/sdd
>>>> devid 2 size 3.64TiB used 3.64TiB path /dev/sdg
>>>> devid 3 size 3.64TiB used 3.64TiB path /dev/sdf
>>>> devid 5 size 3.64TiB used 2.92TiB path /dev/sda
>>>> devid 6 size 3.64TiB used 1.48TiB path /dev/sdb
>>>> devid 7 size 3.64TiB used 3.64TiB path /dev/sdc
>>>>
>>>> btrfs-progs v4.2.3
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Your space really used up, as it can't found *at least 4* disk with
>>> enough
>>> space to allocate a new chunk.
>>> As 4 devices in your array is already filled, the rest 2 is of no means
>>> for
>>> RAID6, and can only be allocated with Single/RAID1/RAID0.
>>>
>>>
>>> But the real problem is, why your devices get such a unbalanced layout.
>>>
>>> Normally, for RAID5/6, it will allocate chunks using all disk with
>>> available
>>> space, and since all your devices are in the same size, it should result
>>> very balanced allocation.
>>>
>>> How did you convert to current RAID6? Did it involves balance from
>>> already
>>> some used disks?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Qu
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> # btrfs fi df /mnt/data
>>>>
>>>> Data, RAID6: total=11.67TiB, used=11.58TiB
>>>> System, RAID6: total=64.00MiB, used=1.70MiB
>>>> Metadata, RAID6: total=15.58GiB, used=13.89GiB
>>>> GlobalReserve, single: total=512.00MiB, used=0.00B
>>>> dan@Morpheus:/mnt/data/temp$ sudo btrfs fi usage /mnt/data
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> # btrfs fi usage /mnt/data
>>>>
>>>> WARNING: RAID56 detected, not implemented
>>>> WARNING: RAID56 detected, not implemented
>>>> WARNING: RAID56 detected, not implemented
>>>> Overall:
>>>> Device size: 21.83TiB
>>>> Device allocated: 0.00B
>>>> Device unallocated: 21.83TiB
>>>> Device missing: 0.00B
>>>> Used: 0.00B
>>>> Free (estimated): 0.00B (min: 8.00EiB)
>>>> Data ratio: 0.00
>>>> Metadata ratio: 0.00
>>>> Global reserve: 512.00MiB (used: 0.00B)
>>>>
>>>> Data,RAID6: Size:11.67TiB, Used:11.58TiB
>>>> /dev/sda 2.92TiB
>>>> /dev/sdb 1.48TiB
>>>> /dev/sdc 3.63TiB
>>>> /dev/sdd 3.63TiB
>>>> /dev/sdf 3.63TiB
>>>> /dev/sdg 3.63TiB
>>>>
>>>> Metadata,RAID6: Size:15.58GiB, Used:13.89GiB
>>>> /dev/sda 4.05GiB
>>>> /dev/sdb 1.50GiB
>>>> /dev/sdc 5.01GiB
>>>> /dev/sdd 5.01GiB
>>>> /dev/sdf 5.01GiB
>>>> /dev/sdg 5.01GiB
>>>>
>>>> System,RAID6: Size:64.00MiB, Used:1.70MiB
>>>> /dev/sda 16.00MiB
>>>> /dev/sdb 16.00MiB
>>>> /dev/sdc 16.00MiB
>>>> /dev/sdd 16.00MiB
>>>> /dev/sdf 16.00MiB
>>>> /dev/sdg 16.00MiB
>>>>
>>>> Unallocated:
>>>> /dev/sda 733.65GiB
>>>> /dev/sdb 2.15TiB
>>>> /dev/sdc 1.02MiB
>>>> /dev/sdd 1.02MiB
>>>> /dev/sdf 1.02MiB
>>>> /dev/sdg 1.02MiB
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone shed some light on why a full balance (sudo btrfs balance
>>>> start /mnt/data) doesnt seem to straighten this out? Any and all help
>>>> is appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: RAID 6 full, but there is still space left on some devices
2016-02-18 23:27 ` Henk Slager
@ 2016-02-19 1:36 ` Qu Wenruo
2016-03-01 14:13 ` Dan Blazejewski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Qu Wenruo @ 2016-02-19 1:36 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Henk Slager, btrfs, Dan Blazejewski
Henk Slager wrote on 2016/02/19 00:27 +0100:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:03 AM, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dan Blazejewski wrote on 2016/02/17 18:04 -0500:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I upgraded my kernel to 4.4.2, and btrfs-progs to 4.4. I also added
>>> another 4TB disk and kicked off a full balance (currently 7x4TB
>>> RAID6). I'm interested to see what an additional drive will do to
>>> this. I'll also have to wait and see if a full system balance on a
>>> newer version of BTRFS tools does the trick or not.
>>>
>>> I also noticed that "btrfs device usage" shows multiple entries for
>>> Data, RAID 6 on some drives. Is this normal? Please note that /dev/sdh
>>> is the new disk, and I only just started the balance.
>>>
>>> # btrfs dev usage /mnt/data
>>> /dev/sda, ID: 5
>>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>>> Unallocated: 733.67GiB
>>>
>>> /dev/sdb, ID: 6
>>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>>> Unallocated: 2.15TiB
>>>
>>> /dev/sdc, ID: 7
>>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>>> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
>>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>>> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
>>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>>> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>>>
>>> /dev/sdd, ID: 1
>>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>>> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
>>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>>> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
>>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>>> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>>>
>>> /dev/sdf, ID: 3
>>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>>> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
>>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>>> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
>>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>>> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>>>
>>> /dev/sdg, ID: 2
>>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>>> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
>>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>>> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
>>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>>> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>>>
>>> /dev/sdh, ID: 8
>>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>>> Unallocated: 3.64TiB
>>>
>>
>> Not sure how that multiple chunk type shows up.
>> Maybe all these shown RAID6 has different number of stripes?
>
> Indeed, its 4 different sets of stripe-widths, i.e. how many drives is
> striped accross. Someone has suggested to indicate this in the output
> of btrfs de us comand some time ago.
>
> The fs has only RAID6 profile and I am not fully sure if the
> 'Unallocated' numbers are correct (on RAID10 they are 2x too high
> with unpatched v4.4 progs), but anyhow the lower devid's are way too
> full.
>
> From the size, one can derive how many devices (or stipe-width):
> 732.69GiB 4, 1.43TiB 5, 1.48TiB 6, 320.00KiB 7
>
>>> Qu, in regards to your question, I ran RAID 1 on multiple disks of
>>> different sizes. I believe I had a mix of 2x4TB, 1x2TB, and 1x3TB
>>> drive. I replaced the 2TB drive first with a 4TB, and balanced it.
>>> Later on, I replaced the 3TB drive with another 4TB, and balanced,
>>> yielding an array of 4x4TB RAID1. A little while later, I wound up
>>> sticking a fifth 4TB drive in, and converting to RAID6. The sixth 4TB
>>> drive was added some time after that. The seventh was added just a few
>>> minutes ago.
>>
>>
>> Personally speaking, I just came up to one method to balance all these
>> disks, and in fact you don't need to add a disk.
>>
>> 1) Balance all data chunk to single profile
>> 2) Balance all metadata chunk to single or RAID1 profile
>> 3) Balance all data chunk back to RAID6 profile
>> 4) Balance all metadata chunk back to RAID6 profile
>> System chunk is so small that normally you don't need to bother.
>>
>> The trick is, as single is the most flex chunk type, only needs one disk
>> with unallocated space.
>> And btrfs chunk allocater will allocate chunk to device with most
>> unallocated space.
>>
>> So after 1) and 2) you should found that chunk allocation is almost
>> perfectly balanced across all devices, as long as they are in same size.
>>
>> Now you have a balance base layout for RAID6 allocation. Should make things
>> go quite smooth and result a balanced RAID6 chunk layout.
>
> This is a good trick to get out of 'the RAID6 full' situation. I have
> done some RAID5 tests on 100G VM disks with kernel/tools 4.5-rcX/v4.4,
> and various balancing starts, cancels, profile converts etc, worked
> surprisingly well, compared to my experience a year back with RAID5
> (hitting bugs, crashes).
>
> A RAID6 full balance with this setup might be very slow, even if the
> fs would be not so full. The VMs I use are on a mixed SSD/HDD
> (bcache'd) array so balancing within the last GB(s), so almost no
> workspace, still makes progress. But on HDD only, things can take very
> long. The 'Unallocated' space on devid 1 should be at least a few GiB,
> otherwise rebalancing will be very slow or just not work.
That's true the rebalance of all chunks will be quite slow.
I just hope OP won't encounter super slow
BTW, the 'unallocated' space can on any device, as btrfs will choose
devices by the order of unallocated space, to alloc new chunk.
In the case of OP, balance itself should continue without much porblem
as several devices have a lot of unallocated space.
>
> The way from RAID6 -> single/RAID1 -> RAID6 might also be more
> acceptable w.r.t. speed in total. Just watch progress I would say.
> Maybe its not needed to do a full convert, just make sure you will
> have enough workspace before starting a convert from single/RAID1 to
> RAID6 again.
>
> With v4.4 tools, you can do filtered balance based on stripe-width, so
> it avoids complete balance again of block groups that are already
> allocated across the right amount of devices.
>
> In this case, avoiding the re-balance of the '320.00KiB group' (in the
> means time could be much larger) you could do this:
> btrfs balance start -v -dstripes=1..6 /mnt/data
Super brilliant idea!!!
I didn't realize that's the silver bullet for such use case.
BTW, can stripes option be used with convert?
IMHO we still need to use single as a temporary state for those not
fully allocated RAID6 chunks.
Or we won't be able to alloc new RAID6 chunk with full stripes.
Thanks,
Qu
> --
> 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] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: RAID 6 full, but there is still space left on some devices
2016-02-19 1:36 ` Qu Wenruo
@ 2016-03-01 14:13 ` Dan Blazejewski
2016-03-01 23:42 ` Gareth Pye
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Dan Blazejewski @ 2016-03-01 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Qu Wenruo; +Cc: Henk Slager, btrfs
Hey all,
Just wanted to follow up with this for anyone experiencing the same issue.
First, I tried Qu's suggestion, of re-balancing to single, then
re-balancing to RAID 6. I noticed when I completed the conversion to
single, that a few drives didn't receive an identical amount of data.
Balancing back to RAID 6 didn't totally work either. It definitely
made it better, but I still had multiple stripes of varying widths.
IIRC, I had one ~1.7TB stripe that went across all 7 drives, and then
a conglomerate of stripes ranging from 2-5 drives wide, and sizes 30GB
- 1TB. The majority of data was striped across all 7, but I was
concerned that as I added data, I'd run into the same situation as
before.
This process took quite a long time, as you guys expected. About 11
days for RAID 6 -> Single -> Raid 6. Patience is a virtue with large
arrays.
Henk, for some reason I didn't receive the email suggesting using the
-dstripes= filter until I was well into the conversion to single. Once
I finished the RAID 6 -> Single -> RAID 6, I attempted your method.
I'm happy to say that it worked, using -dstripes="1..6". This only
took about 30 hours, as most of the data was striped correctly. When
it finished, I was left with one RAID 6 profile, about ~2.50 TB
striped across all 7 drives. As I understand, running a balance with
the -dstripes="1..$drivecount-1" filter will force BTRFS to balance
chunks that are not evenly striped across all drives. I will
definitely have to keep this trick in mind in the future.
A side note, I'm happy with how robust BTRFS is becoming. I had a
sustained power outage while I wasn't home that resulted in an unclean
shutdown in the middle of the balance. (I had preciously disconnected
my UPS' USB connector to move the server to a different room and
forgot to reconnect it. Doh!). When power was returned, it started
right back up where it left off with no corruption or data loss. I
have backups, but I wasn't looking forward to the idea of restoring 11
TB of data.
Than you everyone for your help, and thank you for putting all this
work into BTRFS. Your efforts are truly appreciated.
Regards,
Dan
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
>
> Henk Slager wrote on 2016/02/19 00:27 +0100:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:03 AM, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dan Blazejewski wrote on 2016/02/17 18:04 -0500:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I upgraded my kernel to 4.4.2, and btrfs-progs to 4.4. I also added
>>>> another 4TB disk and kicked off a full balance (currently 7x4TB
>>>> RAID6). I'm interested to see what an additional drive will do to
>>>> this. I'll also have to wait and see if a full system balance on a
>>>> newer version of BTRFS tools does the trick or not.
>>>>
>>>> I also noticed that "btrfs device usage" shows multiple entries for
>>>> Data, RAID 6 on some drives. Is this normal? Please note that /dev/sdh
>>>> is the new disk, and I only just started the balance.
>>>>
>>>> # btrfs dev usage /mnt/data
>>>> /dev/sda, ID: 5
>>>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>>>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>>>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>>>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>>>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>>>> Unallocated: 733.67GiB
>>>>
>>>> /dev/sdb, ID: 6
>>>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>>>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>>>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>>>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>>>> Unallocated: 2.15TiB
>>>>
>>>> /dev/sdc, ID: 7
>>>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>>>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>>>> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
>>>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>>>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>>>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>>>> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>>>>
>>>> /dev/sdd, ID: 1
>>>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>>>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>>>> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
>>>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>>>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>>>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>>>> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>>>>
>>>> /dev/sdf, ID: 3
>>>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>>>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>>>> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
>>>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>>>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>>>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>>>> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>>>>
>>>> /dev/sdg, ID: 2
>>>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>>>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>>>> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
>>>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>>>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>>>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>>>> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>>>>
>>>> /dev/sdh, ID: 8
>>>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>>>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>>>> Unallocated: 3.64TiB
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not sure how that multiple chunk type shows up.
>>> Maybe all these shown RAID6 has different number of stripes?
>>
>>
>> Indeed, its 4 different sets of stripe-widths, i.e. how many drives is
>> striped accross. Someone has suggested to indicate this in the output
>> of btrfs de us comand some time ago.
>>
>> The fs has only RAID6 profile and I am not fully sure if the
>> 'Unallocated' numbers are correct (on RAID10 they are 2x too high
>> with unpatched v4.4 progs), but anyhow the lower devid's are way too
>> full.
>>
>> From the size, one can derive how many devices (or stipe-width):
>> 732.69GiB 4, 1.43TiB 5, 1.48TiB 6, 320.00KiB 7
>>
>>>> Qu, in regards to your question, I ran RAID 1 on multiple disks of
>>>> different sizes. I believe I had a mix of 2x4TB, 1x2TB, and 1x3TB
>>>> drive. I replaced the 2TB drive first with a 4TB, and balanced it.
>>>> Later on, I replaced the 3TB drive with another 4TB, and balanced,
>>>> yielding an array of 4x4TB RAID1. A little while later, I wound up
>>>> sticking a fifth 4TB drive in, and converting to RAID6. The sixth 4TB
>>>> drive was added some time after that. The seventh was added just a few
>>>> minutes ago.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Personally speaking, I just came up to one method to balance all these
>>> disks, and in fact you don't need to add a disk.
>>>
>>> 1) Balance all data chunk to single profile
>>> 2) Balance all metadata chunk to single or RAID1 profile
>>> 3) Balance all data chunk back to RAID6 profile
>>> 4) Balance all metadata chunk back to RAID6 profile
>>> System chunk is so small that normally you don't need to bother.
>>>
>>> The trick is, as single is the most flex chunk type, only needs one disk
>>> with unallocated space.
>>> And btrfs chunk allocater will allocate chunk to device with most
>>> unallocated space.
>>>
>>> So after 1) and 2) you should found that chunk allocation is almost
>>> perfectly balanced across all devices, as long as they are in same size.
>>>
>>> Now you have a balance base layout for RAID6 allocation. Should make
>>> things
>>> go quite smooth and result a balanced RAID6 chunk layout.
>>
>>
>> This is a good trick to get out of 'the RAID6 full' situation. I have
>> done some RAID5 tests on 100G VM disks with kernel/tools 4.5-rcX/v4.4,
>> and various balancing starts, cancels, profile converts etc, worked
>> surprisingly well, compared to my experience a year back with RAID5
>> (hitting bugs, crashes).
>>
>> A RAID6 full balance with this setup might be very slow, even if the
>> fs would be not so full. The VMs I use are on a mixed SSD/HDD
>> (bcache'd) array so balancing within the last GB(s), so almost no
>> workspace, still makes progress. But on HDD only, things can take very
>> long. The 'Unallocated' space on devid 1 should be at least a few GiB,
>> otherwise rebalancing will be very slow or just not work.
>
>
> That's true the rebalance of all chunks will be quite slow.
> I just hope OP won't encounter super slow
>
> BTW, the 'unallocated' space can on any device, as btrfs will choose devices
> by the order of unallocated space, to alloc new chunk.
> In the case of OP, balance itself should continue without much porblem as
> several devices have a lot of unallocated space.
>
>>
>> The way from RAID6 -> single/RAID1 -> RAID6 might also be more
>> acceptable w.r.t. speed in total. Just watch progress I would say.
>> Maybe its not needed to do a full convert, just make sure you will
>> have enough workspace before starting a convert from single/RAID1 to
>> RAID6 again.
>>
>> With v4.4 tools, you can do filtered balance based on stripe-width, so
>> it avoids complete balance again of block groups that are already
>> allocated across the right amount of devices.
>>
>> In this case, avoiding the re-balance of the '320.00KiB group' (in the
>> means time could be much larger) you could do this:
>> btrfs balance start -v -dstripes=1..6 /mnt/data
>
>
> Super brilliant idea!!!
>
> I didn't realize that's the silver bullet for such use case.
>
> BTW, can stripes option be used with convert?
> IMHO we still need to use single as a temporary state for those not fully
> allocated RAID6 chunks.
> Or we won't be able to alloc new RAID6 chunk with full stripes.
>
> Thanks,
> Qu
>
>
>> --
>> 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] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: RAID 6 full, but there is still space left on some devices
2016-03-01 14:13 ` Dan Blazejewski
@ 2016-03-01 23:42 ` Gareth Pye
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Gareth Pye @ 2016-03-01 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Dan Blazejewski; +Cc: Qu Wenruo, Henk Slager, btrfs
When I've been converting from RAID1 to RAID5 I've been getting
stripes that only contain 1G regardless of how wide the stripe is. So
when I've done a large convert I've had to limit the blocks and then
do a balance of the target profile and repeat till finished.
Has anyone else seen similar?
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Dan Blazejewski
<dan.blazejewski@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Just wanted to follow up with this for anyone experiencing the same issue.
>
> First, I tried Qu's suggestion, of re-balancing to single, then
> re-balancing to RAID 6. I noticed when I completed the conversion to
> single, that a few drives didn't receive an identical amount of data.
> Balancing back to RAID 6 didn't totally work either. It definitely
> made it better, but I still had multiple stripes of varying widths.
> IIRC, I had one ~1.7TB stripe that went across all 7 drives, and then
> a conglomerate of stripes ranging from 2-5 drives wide, and sizes 30GB
> - 1TB. The majority of data was striped across all 7, but I was
> concerned that as I added data, I'd run into the same situation as
> before.
>
> This process took quite a long time, as you guys expected. About 11
> days for RAID 6 -> Single -> Raid 6. Patience is a virtue with large
> arrays.
>
>
>
> Henk, for some reason I didn't receive the email suggesting using the
> -dstripes= filter until I was well into the conversion to single. Once
> I finished the RAID 6 -> Single -> RAID 6, I attempted your method.
> I'm happy to say that it worked, using -dstripes="1..6". This only
> took about 30 hours, as most of the data was striped correctly. When
> it finished, I was left with one RAID 6 profile, about ~2.50 TB
> striped across all 7 drives. As I understand, running a balance with
> the -dstripes="1..$drivecount-1" filter will force BTRFS to balance
> chunks that are not evenly striped across all drives. I will
> definitely have to keep this trick in mind in the future.
>
>
> A side note, I'm happy with how robust BTRFS is becoming. I had a
> sustained power outage while I wasn't home that resulted in an unclean
> shutdown in the middle of the balance. (I had preciously disconnected
> my UPS' USB connector to move the server to a different room and
> forgot to reconnect it. Doh!). When power was returned, it started
> right back up where it left off with no corruption or data loss. I
> have backups, but I wasn't looking forward to the idea of restoring 11
> TB of data.
>
> Than you everyone for your help, and thank you for putting all this
> work into BTRFS. Your efforts are truly appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Dan
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Henk Slager wrote on 2016/02/19 00:27 +0100:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:03 AM, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dan Blazejewski wrote on 2016/02/17 18:04 -0500:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I upgraded my kernel to 4.4.2, and btrfs-progs to 4.4. I also added
>>>>> another 4TB disk and kicked off a full balance (currently 7x4TB
>>>>> RAID6). I'm interested to see what an additional drive will do to
>>>>> this. I'll also have to wait and see if a full system balance on a
>>>>> newer version of BTRFS tools does the trick or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also noticed that "btrfs device usage" shows multiple entries for
>>>>> Data, RAID 6 on some drives. Is this normal? Please note that /dev/sdh
>>>>> is the new disk, and I only just started the balance.
>>>>>
>>>>> # btrfs dev usage /mnt/data
>>>>> /dev/sda, ID: 5
>>>>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>>>>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>>>>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>>>>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>>>>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>>>>> Unallocated: 733.67GiB
>>>>>
>>>>> /dev/sdb, ID: 6
>>>>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>>>>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>>>>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>>>>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>>>>> Unallocated: 2.15TiB
>>>>>
>>>>> /dev/sdc, ID: 7
>>>>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>>>>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>>>>> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
>>>>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>>>>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
>>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>>>>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>>>>> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>>>>>
>>>>> /dev/sdd, ID: 1
>>>>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>>>>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>>>>> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
>>>>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>>>>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
>>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>>>>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>>>>> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>>>>>
>>>>> /dev/sdf, ID: 3
>>>>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>>>>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>>>>> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
>>>>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>>>>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
>>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>>>>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>>>>> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>>>>>
>>>>> /dev/sdg, ID: 2
>>>>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>>>>> Data,RAID6: 1.43TiB
>>>>> Data,RAID6: 732.69GiB
>>>>> Data,RAID6: 1.48TiB
>>>>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 2.55GiB
>>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 982.00MiB
>>>>> Metadata,RAID6: 1.50GiB
>>>>> System,RAID6: 16.00MiB
>>>>> Unallocated: 25.21MiB
>>>>>
>>>>> /dev/sdh, ID: 8
>>>>> Device size: 3.64TiB
>>>>> Data,RAID6: 320.00KiB
>>>>> Unallocated: 3.64TiB
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not sure how that multiple chunk type shows up.
>>>> Maybe all these shown RAID6 has different number of stripes?
>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed, its 4 different sets of stripe-widths, i.e. how many drives is
>>> striped accross. Someone has suggested to indicate this in the output
>>> of btrfs de us comand some time ago.
>>>
>>> The fs has only RAID6 profile and I am not fully sure if the
>>> 'Unallocated' numbers are correct (on RAID10 they are 2x too high
>>> with unpatched v4.4 progs), but anyhow the lower devid's are way too
>>> full.
>>>
>>> From the size, one can derive how many devices (or stipe-width):
>>> 732.69GiB 4, 1.43TiB 5, 1.48TiB 6, 320.00KiB 7
>>>
>>>>> Qu, in regards to your question, I ran RAID 1 on multiple disks of
>>>>> different sizes. I believe I had a mix of 2x4TB, 1x2TB, and 1x3TB
>>>>> drive. I replaced the 2TB drive first with a 4TB, and balanced it.
>>>>> Later on, I replaced the 3TB drive with another 4TB, and balanced,
>>>>> yielding an array of 4x4TB RAID1. A little while later, I wound up
>>>>> sticking a fifth 4TB drive in, and converting to RAID6. The sixth 4TB
>>>>> drive was added some time after that. The seventh was added just a few
>>>>> minutes ago.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Personally speaking, I just came up to one method to balance all these
>>>> disks, and in fact you don't need to add a disk.
>>>>
>>>> 1) Balance all data chunk to single profile
>>>> 2) Balance all metadata chunk to single or RAID1 profile
>>>> 3) Balance all data chunk back to RAID6 profile
>>>> 4) Balance all metadata chunk back to RAID6 profile
>>>> System chunk is so small that normally you don't need to bother.
>>>>
>>>> The trick is, as single is the most flex chunk type, only needs one disk
>>>> with unallocated space.
>>>> And btrfs chunk allocater will allocate chunk to device with most
>>>> unallocated space.
>>>>
>>>> So after 1) and 2) you should found that chunk allocation is almost
>>>> perfectly balanced across all devices, as long as they are in same size.
>>>>
>>>> Now you have a balance base layout for RAID6 allocation. Should make
>>>> things
>>>> go quite smooth and result a balanced RAID6 chunk layout.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a good trick to get out of 'the RAID6 full' situation. I have
>>> done some RAID5 tests on 100G VM disks with kernel/tools 4.5-rcX/v4.4,
>>> and various balancing starts, cancels, profile converts etc, worked
>>> surprisingly well, compared to my experience a year back with RAID5
>>> (hitting bugs, crashes).
>>>
>>> A RAID6 full balance with this setup might be very slow, even if the
>>> fs would be not so full. The VMs I use are on a mixed SSD/HDD
>>> (bcache'd) array so balancing within the last GB(s), so almost no
>>> workspace, still makes progress. But on HDD only, things can take very
>>> long. The 'Unallocated' space on devid 1 should be at least a few GiB,
>>> otherwise rebalancing will be very slow or just not work.
>>
>>
>> That's true the rebalance of all chunks will be quite slow.
>> I just hope OP won't encounter super slow
>>
>> BTW, the 'unallocated' space can on any device, as btrfs will choose devices
>> by the order of unallocated space, to alloc new chunk.
>> In the case of OP, balance itself should continue without much porblem as
>> several devices have a lot of unallocated space.
>>
>>>
>>> The way from RAID6 -> single/RAID1 -> RAID6 might also be more
>>> acceptable w.r.t. speed in total. Just watch progress I would say.
>>> Maybe its not needed to do a full convert, just make sure you will
>>> have enough workspace before starting a convert from single/RAID1 to
>>> RAID6 again.
>>>
>>> With v4.4 tools, you can do filtered balance based on stripe-width, so
>>> it avoids complete balance again of block groups that are already
>>> allocated across the right amount of devices.
>>>
>>> In this case, avoiding the re-balance of the '320.00KiB group' (in the
>>> means time could be much larger) you could do this:
>>> btrfs balance start -v -dstripes=1..6 /mnt/data
>>
>>
>> Super brilliant idea!!!
>>
>> I didn't realize that's the silver bullet for such use case.
>>
>> BTW, can stripes option be used with convert?
>> IMHO we still need to use single as a temporary state for those not fully
>> allocated RAID6 chunks.
>> Or we won't be able to alloc new RAID6 chunk with full stripes.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Qu
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> --
> 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
--
Gareth Pye - blog.cerberos.id.au
Level 2 MTG Judge, Melbourne, Australia
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-03-01 23:42 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-02-16 20:20 RAID 6 full, but there is still space left on some devices Dan Blazejewski
2016-02-17 4:28 ` Duncan
2016-02-17 5:58 ` Qu Wenruo
[not found] ` <CABmr4wVvjB7vGDsZWyCd222E1D-+kmk2SS2XwH2dp+K6YWWe=A@mail.gmail.com>
2016-02-18 2:03 ` Qu Wenruo
2016-02-18 23:27 ` Henk Slager
2016-02-19 1:36 ` Qu Wenruo
2016-03-01 14:13 ` Dan Blazejewski
2016-03-01 23:42 ` Gareth Pye
2016-02-19 0:01 ` Dan Blazejewski
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.