-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
- Loading branch information
Showing
24 changed files
with
5,127 additions
and
0 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,254 @@ | ||
| [\#2028 Issue](https://github.com/rear/rear/issues/2028) `open`: BTRFS Raid / Multi Disk setup is currently not supported | ||
| ========================================================================================================================= | ||
|
|
||
| **Labels**: `needs sponsorship`, `severe improvement` | ||
|
|
||
| #### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1926396?u=705546e01ca12110cc5f18b9dbc2ffe1b447cd76&v=4" width="50">[ChojinDSL](https://github.com/ChojinDSL) opened issue at [2019-02-01 16:41](https://github.com/rear/rear/issues/2028): | ||
|
|
||
| I've noticed that ReaR doesn't correctly work with a BTRFS Multiple Disk | ||
| setup. | ||
|
|
||
| E.g. a BTRFS Volume can consist of multiple disks in a variety of | ||
| configurations, e.g. single, RAID1, RAID10, RAID5/6, etc.. | ||
|
|
||
| It seems as if ReaR only creates a single disk BTRFS Volume during | ||
| recovery. This could create problem if the backup is larger than a | ||
| single disk. | ||
|
|
||
| Since BTRFS supports many mixed configurations, e.g. Metadata as RAID1 | ||
| but Data as RAID10, accurately detecting the original layout might be | ||
| tricky. | ||
| However, at the very least it would be very nice if ReaR could detect if | ||
| a BTRFS Volume consists of multiple devices and then re-creates the | ||
| BTRFS volume with the member devices during recovery. | ||
|
|
||
| If you create the BTRFS volume with just a list of devices, then per | ||
| default the volume will be created as a "single" volume, but with the | ||
| total capacity of all member devices. Since BTRFS supports rebalancing | ||
| to migrate from single to RAID1/10/5/6, it would be easy for the user to | ||
| rebalance their system back to their original layout, after recovery has | ||
| taken place and the system has bootet into the OS. | ||
|
|
||
| #### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1788608?u=925fc54e2ce01551392622446ece427f51e2f0ce&v=4" width="50">[jsmeix](https://github.com/jsmeix) commented at [2019-02-05 10:04](https://github.com/rear/rear/issues/2028#issuecomment-460579609): | ||
|
|
||
| I implemented the current Btrfs support in ReaR and | ||
| I never had a Btrfs setup on multiple disks | ||
| so that I think you are right that currently | ||
| ReaR does not support a Btrfs filesystem that is on more than one | ||
| partition. | ||
|
|
||
| See | ||
| "Disk layout file syntax" at | ||
| [https://github.com/rear/rear/blob/master/doc/user-guide/06-layout-configuration.adoc](https://github.com/rear/rear/blob/master/doc/user-guide/06-layout-configuration.adoc) | ||
| that reads (excerpt) | ||
|
|
||
| Filesystems | ||
|
|
||
| fs <device> <mountpoint> <filesystem type> [uuid=<uuid>] [label=<label>] [blocksize=<block size(B)>] [<reserved_blocks=<nr of reserved blocks>] [max_mounts=<nr>] [check_interval=<number of days>d] [options=<filesystem options>] | ||
|
|
||
| Btrfs Default SubVolumes | ||
|
|
||
| btrfsdefaultsubvol <device> <mountpoint> <btrfs_subvolume_ID> <btrfs_subvolume_path> | ||
|
|
||
| Btrfs Normal SubVolumes | ||
|
|
||
| btrfsnormalsubvol <device> <mountpoint> <btrfs_subvolume_ID> <btrfs_subvolume_path> | ||
|
|
||
| Btrfs Mounted SubVolumes | ||
|
|
||
| btrfsmountedsubvol <device> <subvolume_mountpoint> <mount_options> <btrfs_subvolume_path> | ||
|
|
||
| where all show only `device` but no `devices`. | ||
|
|
||
| See also | ||
| [https://github.com/rear/rear/issues/2023](https://github.com/rear/rear/issues/2023) | ||
|
|
||
| #### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1788608?u=925fc54e2ce01551392622446ece427f51e2f0ce&v=4" width="50">[jsmeix](https://github.com/jsmeix) commented at [2019-02-05 11:43](https://github.com/rear/rear/issues/2028#issuecomment-460607949): | ||
|
|
||
| @ChojinDSL | ||
| to get an idea how a Btrfs setup on multiple disks could look like | ||
| could you please post here the output of the command | ||
|
|
||
| lsblk -i -p -o NAME,KNAME,PKNAME,TRAN,TYPE,FSTYPE,SIZE,MOUNTPOINT | ||
|
|
||
| on your original system or systems when you have different kind of them. | ||
|
|
||
| Perhaps you may need to specify some more output columns that could be | ||
| of particular interest in case of Btrfs on multiple disks, see | ||
| `lsblk -h` | ||
| what output columns are available for the `lsblk` command on your | ||
| particular system. | ||
|
|
||
| By the way: | ||
| What Linux distribution and version do you use? | ||
| Cf. | ||
| [https://github.com/rear/rear/blob/master/.github/ISSUE\_TEMPLATE.md](https://github.com/rear/rear/blob/master/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE.md) | ||
|
|
||
| #### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1926396?u=705546e01ca12110cc5f18b9dbc2ffe1b447cd76&v=4" width="50">[ChojinDSL](https://github.com/ChojinDSL) commented at [2019-02-05 15:35](https://github.com/rear/rear/issues/2028#issuecomment-460683215): | ||
|
|
||
| @jsmeix Here's the output of lsblk you asked for. | ||
|
|
||
| I use Debian Stretch at the moment. | ||
|
|
||
| NAME KNAME PKNAME TRAN TYPE FSTYPE SIZE MOUNTPOINT | ||
| /dev/sda /dev/sda sas disk 1.7T | ||
| |-/dev/sda1 /dev/sda1 /dev/sda part vfat 512M /boot/efi | ||
| |-/dev/sda2 /dev/sda2 /dev/sda part btrfs 1.5T / | ||
| `-/dev/sda3 /dev/sda3 /dev/sda part swap 127.7G [SWAP] | ||
| /dev/sdb /dev/sdb sas disk 1.7T | ||
| |-/dev/sdb1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdb part 512M | ||
| |-/dev/sdb2 /dev/sdb2 /dev/sdb part btrfs 1.5T | ||
| `-/dev/sdb3 /dev/sdb3 /dev/sdb part swap 127.7G [SWAP] | ||
| /dev/sdc /dev/sdc sas disk 1.7T | ||
| |-/dev/sdc1 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdc part 512M | ||
| |-/dev/sdc2 /dev/sdc2 /dev/sdc part btrfs 1.5T | ||
| `-/dev/sdc3 /dev/sdc3 /dev/sdc part swap 127.7G [SWAP] | ||
| /dev/sdd /dev/sdd sas disk 1.7T | ||
| |-/dev/sdd1 /dev/sdd1 /dev/sdd part 512M | ||
| |-/dev/sdd2 /dev/sdd2 /dev/sdd part btrfs 1.5T | ||
| `-/dev/sdd3 /dev/sdd3 /dev/sdd part swap 127.7G [SWAP] | ||
| /dev/sde /dev/sde sas disk 1.7T | ||
| |-/dev/sde1 /dev/sde1 /dev/sde part 512M | ||
| |-/dev/sde2 /dev/sde2 /dev/sde part btrfs 1.5T | ||
| `-/dev/sde3 /dev/sde3 /dev/sde part swap 127.7G [SWAP] | ||
| /dev/sdf /dev/sdf sas disk 1.7T | ||
| |-/dev/sdf1 /dev/sdf1 /dev/sdf part 512M | ||
| |-/dev/sdf2 /dev/sdf2 /dev/sdf part btrfs 1.5T | ||
| `-/dev/sdf3 /dev/sdf3 /dev/sdf part swap 127.7G [SWAP] | ||
| /dev/sdg /dev/sdg sas disk 1.7T | ||
| |-/dev/sdg1 /dev/sdg1 /dev/sdg part 512M | ||
| |-/dev/sdg2 /dev/sdg2 /dev/sdg part btrfs 1.5T | ||
| `-/dev/sdg3 /dev/sdg3 /dev/sdg part swap 127.7G [SWAP] | ||
| /dev/sdh /dev/sdh sas disk 1.7T | ||
| |-/dev/sdh1 /dev/sdh1 /dev/sdh part 512M | ||
| |-/dev/sdh2 /dev/sdh2 /dev/sdh part btrfs 1.5T | ||
| `-/dev/sdh3 /dev/sdh3 /dev/sdh part swap 127.7G [SWAP] | ||
|
|
||
| #### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1926396?u=705546e01ca12110cc5f18b9dbc2ffe1b447cd76&v=4" width="50">[ChojinDSL](https://github.com/ChojinDSL) commented at [2019-02-12 10:04](https://github.com/rear/rear/issues/2028#issuecomment-462696494): | ||
|
|
||
| BTRFS is a bit unusual since it's so flexible and allows for very | ||
| unusual setups. | ||
| It's probably easier to get information about the underlying BTRFS setup | ||
| using some of BTRFS's own tools. | ||
|
|
||
| e..g | ||
|
|
||
| ############# | ||
| btrfs fi show | ||
|
|
||
| Label: 'ROOT' uuid: 69a8d230-fe68-4504-bb14-1742acdb8967 | ||
| Total devices 8 FS bytes used 2.23GiB | ||
| devid 1 size 1.51TiB used 1.27GiB path /dev/sda2 | ||
| devid 2 size 1.51TiB used 1.27GiB path /dev/sdb2 | ||
| devid 3 size 1.51TiB used 1.27GiB path /dev/sdc2 | ||
| devid 4 size 1.51TiB used 1.27GiB path /dev/sdd2 | ||
| devid 5 size 1.51TiB used 1.27GiB path /dev/sde2 | ||
| devid 6 size 1.51TiB used 1.27GiB path /dev/sdf2 | ||
| devid 7 size 1.51TiB used 1.27GiB path /dev/sdg2 | ||
| devid 8 size 1.51TiB used 1.27GiB path /dev/sdh2 | ||
|
|
||
| ############### | ||
| btrfs fi usage / | ||
|
|
||
| Overall: | ||
| Device size: 12.10TiB | ||
| Device allocated: 10.12GiB | ||
| Device unallocated: 12.09TiB | ||
| Device missing: 0.00B | ||
| Used: 4.47GiB | ||
| Free (estimated): 6.05TiB (min: 6.05TiB) | ||
| Data ratio: 2.00 | ||
| Metadata ratio: 2.00 | ||
| Global reserve: 16.00MiB (used: 0.00B) | ||
|
|
||
| Data,RAID10: Size:4.00GiB, Used:2.16GiB | ||
| /dev/sda2 512.00MiB | ||
| /dev/sdb2 512.00MiB | ||
| /dev/sdc2 512.00MiB | ||
| /dev/sdd2 512.00MiB | ||
| /dev/sde2 512.00MiB | ||
| /dev/sdf2 512.00MiB | ||
| /dev/sdg2 512.00MiB | ||
| /dev/sdh2 512.00MiB | ||
|
|
||
| Metadata,RAID10: Size:1.00GiB, Used:71.77MiB | ||
| /dev/sda2 128.00MiB | ||
| /dev/sdb2 128.00MiB | ||
| /dev/sdc2 128.00MiB | ||
| /dev/sdd2 128.00MiB | ||
| /dev/sde2 128.00MiB | ||
| /dev/sdf2 128.00MiB | ||
| /dev/sdg2 128.00MiB | ||
| /dev/sdh2 128.00MiB | ||
|
|
||
| System,RAID10: Size:64.00MiB, Used:16.00KiB | ||
| /dev/sda2 8.00MiB | ||
| /dev/sdb2 8.00MiB | ||
| /dev/sdc2 8.00MiB | ||
| /dev/sdd2 8.00MiB | ||
| /dev/sde2 8.00MiB | ||
| /dev/sdf2 8.00MiB | ||
| /dev/sdg2 8.00MiB | ||
| /dev/sdh2 8.00MiB | ||
|
|
||
| Unallocated: | ||
| /dev/sda2 1.51TiB | ||
| /dev/sdb2 1.51TiB | ||
| /dev/sdc2 1.51TiB | ||
| /dev/sdd2 1.51TiB | ||
| /dev/sde2 1.51TiB | ||
| /dev/sdf2 1.51TiB | ||
| /dev/sdg2 1.51TiB | ||
| /dev/sdh2 1.51TiB | ||
|
|
||
| #### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1788608?u=925fc54e2ce01551392622446ece427f51e2f0ce&v=4" width="50">[jsmeix](https://github.com/jsmeix) commented at [2019-02-13 13:10](https://github.com/rear/rear/issues/2028#issuecomment-463193378): | ||
|
|
||
| @ChojinDSL | ||
| I know Btrfs "is a bit unusual" (polite wording ;-) | ||
|
|
||
| Btrfs' features just break traditional assumptions | ||
| how a stack of storage objects is usually organized | ||
| (like disks => partitions => filesystems => mountpoints). | ||
|
|
||
| You may have a look at | ||
| [https://github.com/rear/rear/pull/1603\#issuecomment-347839823](https://github.com/rear/rear/pull/1603#issuecomment-347839823) | ||
| and | ||
| [https://github.com/rear/rear/pull/1603\#issuecomment-347860869](https://github.com/rear/rear/pull/1603#issuecomment-347860869) | ||
| and follow the links therein. | ||
|
|
||
| I fear implementing support for Btrfs setup on multiple disks | ||
| may require that the whole disk layout code in ReaR needs | ||
| to be fundamentally changed, enhanced, and overhauled. | ||
| On the other hand | ||
| [https://github.com/rear/rear/issues/2023\#issuecomment-456764118](https://github.com/rear/rear/issues/2023#issuecomment-456764118) | ||
| indicates that perhaps it could be even easier than it looks like. | ||
|
|
||
| #### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?v=4" width="50">[github-actions](https://github.com/apps/github-actions) commented at [2020-06-28 01:33](https://github.com/rear/rear/issues/2028#issuecomment-650665291): | ||
|
|
||
| Stale issue message | ||
|
|
||
| #### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/101384?v=4" width="50">[schlomo](https://github.com/schlomo) commented at [2024-12-13 07:18](https://github.com/rear/rear/issues/2028#issuecomment-2540742272): | ||
|
|
||
| I guess we'll have to come back to this issue eventually and probably | ||
| treat BTRFS more like LVM and RAID and not just like another filesystem. | ||
| If we move BTRFS to the LVM / RAID layer then we could treat it as a | ||
| NOOP in the filesystem creation stage. | ||
|
|
||
| I'd like to reopen this and mark it as waiting for sponsor, WDYT | ||
| @rear/contributors ? | ||
|
|
||
| #### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1788608?u=925fc54e2ce01551392622446ece427f51e2f0ce&v=4" width="50">[jsmeix](https://github.com/jsmeix) commented at [2024-12-13 12:31](https://github.com/rear/rear/issues/2028#issuecomment-2541347386): | ||
|
|
||
| I reopened it as a "severe improvement" | ||
| with target milestone "ReaR 3.1" | ||
| because (as far as I understand it) "ReaR 3.0" | ||
| is primarily intended to deprecate old features soon | ||
| so "ReaR 3.0" is intended to be relaeased | ||
| "relatively soon" after "Rear 2.8" | ||
| so implementing big things which take longer time | ||
| cannot be done for "ReaR 3.0". | ||
|
|
||
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
|
|
||
| \[Export of Github issue for | ||
| [rear/rear](https://github.com/rear/rear).\] |
Oops, something went wrong.