root full but du not showing why - snapshots? Can't even free up

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: root full but du not showing why - snapshots? Can't even free up

Carlos E. R.-2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On Wednesday, 2017-11-15 at 04:43 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:

> On Wednesday, 2017-11-15 at 06:28 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>>  15.11.2017 01:33, David C. Rankin пишет:
>>>  On 11/14/2017 4:05 AM, nicholas cunliffe wrote:
>>>>  Most problems and those currently being 'experienced right now' are
>>>>  due to user ignorance - specifically: not monitoring space, not
>>>>  knowing commands to monitor space, not knowing how to deal with
>>>>  snapshots, not knowing how or implementing default settings.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  To be blunt and non-politically correct, that's just BS.
>>>
>>>  When YAST is supposed to be the wizard that guides new users through
>>>  setup providing defaults for just about everything and hiding the
>>>  details behind "Expert" partitioning buttons, it is malarkey, and an ill
>>>  placed ad hominem to blame the user for not monitoring what is
>>>  mysteriously ballooning storage behind the scenes -- that heretofore has
>>>  never been a problem before btrfs became the default filesystem.
>>>
>>>  To be candid, you can blame the user for failing to monitor disk space
>>>  when the cause of the problem is what the user put on the disk filling
>>>  it up, but when the problem is the result of YAST defaults that
>>>  repeatedly lead to just this type of problem, blaming the user is just
>>>  an attempt to avoid responsibility for an imprudent choice of a default
>>>  filesystem.
>>>
>>>  If we are not going to have YAST make good default choices for the new
>>>  users, then we certainly should not blame the user or call them
>>>  "ignorant" when foreseeable problems based on YAST defaults occur.
>>>
>>
>>  What should YaST defaults be? You apparently are in possession of silver
>>  bullet, why keep it secret? I am sure developers will immediately
>>  implement your suggestion.
>
> You are correct, but David also has a point, but not nicely drawn :-)
>
> The thing is, we can not blame the fault on "user ignorance" if a tool
> such as YAST did not use good defaults for a plain user. We, as users,
> expect YAST to make life easy for us, without needing to be experts.
>
> Or in other words: if a filesystem requires the user to become
> knowledgeable in "arcane settings and tools", then it is not a good
> default choice.
On the other hand, I have seen plain users with little knowledge recover
from a system failure due to bad user management just by reverting a
snapshot, unaided - just by chancing on the appropiate doc. Sure btrfs has
very nice features.

- --
Cheers,
        Carlos E. R.
        (from openSUSE 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAloLuR4ACgkQtTMYHG2NR9Xu0ACcDo5sgdnA6nKygt6XFRovxtfm
eBMAniYvF8SIiMjMaGmHioMOWREw6oC+
=i0Za
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: root full but du not showing why - snapshots? Can't even free up

jdd@dodin.org
In reply to this post by Carlos E. R.-2
Le 15/11/2017 à 04:43, Carlos E. R. a écrit :

> Or in other words: if a filesystem requires the user to become
> knowledgeable in "arcane settings and tools", then it is not a good
> default choice.
>

two things:

* "default" can't fit any situation, if not it would be called "universal"

* Richard said that the defaults changed already with the time, and I
can confirm the 42.3 default are much better than the old ones (on the
old times, two years ago :-))

jdd

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: root full but du not showing why - snapshots? Can't even free up

Rodney Baker-2
In reply to this post by Richard Brown
On Tuesday, 14 November 2017 20:41:12 ACDT Richard Brown wrote:
> On 14 November 2017 at 00:47, Rodney Baker <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> > On Tuesday, 14 November 2017 8:00:33 ACDT Dr.-Ing. Dieter Jurzitza wrote:
> >> Hello Mikhail,
> >> your plan to switch to ext4 is the best thing you can do for private
> >> usage.
> >
> > +1
> >
> >>[...]
> >>The main property of btrfs is being broken. And the tools that are at hand
> >>
> >> are neither easy to use nor secure. You should never use fsck for example
> >> -
> >
> > +100
> >
> > Found these;
> >
> > https://www.linux.com/news/snapper-suses-ultimate-btrfs-snapshot-manager
> >
> > https://www.suse.com/documentation/sles11/stor_admin/data/
> > trbl_btrfs_volfull.html
>
> I personally prefer the openSUSE Wiki for its comprehensive guide to
> the common concerns with BTRFS
>
> https://en.opensuse.org/SDB:BTRFS

Fair enough - I went with the most appropriate links that a cursory google
search turned up. You'll note that the second link is from the SLES
documentation, which arguably is a pretty useful resource.

>
> Since following the above guides I've been comfortable running btrfs
> for the last years

I'm glad it works for you. I have no need for snapshots (I manage my own
backup strategy) and having ended up with non-bootable systems not once, but
twice, and with the cost of 256GB SSD's still being considerably more
(locally, at least) than the 128GB that currently holds / (but not /var, /
home, /usr/local, /downloads and some other local data-only partitions), I
really don't need to have a filesystem that needs double the amount of space
provisioned (as per the recommendation in the SLES documentation above) than
would otherwise be the case.

I gave up on LVM for similar reasons - irrecoverable data loss when one disk
of a spanned LVM volume failed. Unfortunately, at that time, I didn't have
that data backed up (thankfully, it wasn't that critical).

Still, that is the beauty of Linux - choice.

Rodney.

--
==============================================================
Rodney Baker VK5ZTV
[hidden email]
CCNA #CSCO12880208
==============================================================

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: root full but du not showing why - snapshots? Can't even free up

Carlos E. R.-2
In reply to this post by jdd@dodin.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On Wednesday, 2017-11-15 at 09:15 +0100, [hidden email] wrote:

> Le 15/11/2017 à 04:43, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
>
>>  Or in other words: if a filesystem requires the user to become
>>  knowledgeable in "arcane settings and tools", then it is not a good
>>  default choice.
>>
>
> two things:
>
> * "default" can't fit any situation, if not it would be called "universal"
>
> * Richard said that the defaults changed already with the time, and I can
> confirm the 42.3 default are much better than the old ones (on the old times,
> two years ago :-))
True.

The key point for me, anyway, is that we should not blame the user for not
knowing how to handle btrfs, when he just went ahead with whatever
defaults.

- --
Cheers,
        Carlos E. R.
        (from openSUSE 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAloMKsAACgkQtTMYHG2NR9VK0gCglbewV+iuTpsQEMgA9f/debuU
d8MAnikgJJMUx1DCm0U99lZhKddtcmfg
=dMqj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: root full but du not showing why - snapshots? Can't even free up

jdd@dodin.org
Le 15/11/2017 à 12:53, Carlos E. R. a écrit :

> The key point for me, anyway, is that we should not blame the user for
> not knowing how to handle btrfs, when he just went ahead with whatever
> defaults.

I just went on an "ext4 file system corrupt" and had to (re)learn to use
fsck, same for any file system

jdd

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: root full but du not showing why - snapshots? Can't even free up

Carlos E. R.-2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On Wednesday, 2017-11-15 at 13:04 +0100, [hidden email] wrote:
> Le 15/11/2017 à 12:53, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
>
>>  The key point for me, anyway, is that we should not blame the user for not
>>  knowing how to handle btrfs, when he just went ahead with whatever
>>  defaults.
>
> I just went on an "ext4 file system corrupt" and had to (re)learn to use
> fsck, same for any file system

In most cases, I just issue "fsck /dev/sdXY" and wait. If it fails, it
typically says what to do next.

- --
Cheers,
        Carlos E. R.
        (from openSUSE 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAloML4EACgkQtTMYHG2NR9WVFwCfXU23OPd+2y2uD9y0TqOAZLNr
+pwAn2acncO0GTwLWjk04YWszN1CdAoF
=CkGM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: root full but du not showing why - snapshots? Can't even free up

Wol's lists
On 15/11/17 12:13, Carlos E. R. wrote:

>
>
> On Wednesday, 2017-11-15 at 13:04 +0100, [hidden email] wrote:
>> Le 15/11/2017 à 12:53, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
>
>>>  The key point for me, anyway, is that we should not blame the user
>>> for not
>>>  knowing how to handle btrfs, when he just went ahead with whatever
>>>  defaults.
>
>> I just went on an "ext4 file system corrupt" and had to (re)learn to
>> use fsck, same for any file system
>
> In most cases, I just issue "fsck /dev/sdXY" and wait. If it fails, it
> typically says what to do next.
>
The problem, as I regularly find, is that when I have problems the
results found by Google are often pretty naff. What's the use of a load
of articles circa 2011 when Plasma 5 is giving me grief?

And fortunately, while it's not that common any more, I gather there
used to be a lot of people finding advice to fix a broken raid with
"mdadm --create ..." - way to go guys!

Cheers,
Wol

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: root full but du not showing why - snapshots? Can't even free up

Dave Howorth-3
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 14:46:18 +0000
Wols Lists <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The problem, as I regularly find, is that when I have problems the
> results found by Google are often pretty naff. What's the use of a
> load of articles circa 2011 when Plasma 5 is giving me grief?

I agree. There are a couple of things you can do to help, of course:
include +"plasma 5" in the search, or restrict the search to the past
year or so.

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: root full but du not showing why - snapshots? Can't even free up

Ken Schneider - openSUSE
In reply to this post by Carlos E. R.-2
On 11/14/2017 10:48 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>> Or in other words: if a filesystem requires the user to become
>> knowledgeable in "arcane settings and tools", then it is not a good
>> default choice.
>
> On the other hand, I have seen plain users with little knowledge recover
> from a system failure due to bad user management just by reverting a
> snapshot, unaided - just by chancing on the appropiate doc. Sure btrfs
> has very nice features.
>

I agree that BTRFS does have some nice features and I don't blame BTRFS
for filling /. The main problem I have observed is the error on using a
minimal amount of space for / when the system is setup for installation.
WHY is only 20-50GB allocated? Have HDD's become so expensive again that
space needs to rationed so tightly? Whomever is in charge of
installation defaults needs to be a little more realistic when it comes
to HDD sizes today.

--
Ken Schneider
SuSe since Version 5.2, June 1998

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: root full but du not showing why - snapshots? Can't even free up

jdd@dodin.org
Le 16/11/2017 à 16:56, Ken Schneider - openSUSE a écrit :

> I agree that BTRFS does have some nice features and I don't blame BTRFS
> for filling /. The main problem I have observed is the error on using a
> minimal amount of space for / when the system is setup for installation.

early (aka 13.2 or 42.1) install where suboptimal. Now (42.3), default
are much better. 40Gb like the OP should be enough, specially on ssd
that are not yet that cheap on large size.

for sure the time with small content is gone, but my own online server
is not that big (not btrfs though)

/dev/sda1 ext4 29G 5,1G 23G  19% /

:-)
jdd

--
http://dodin.org

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

12