Cache pool - "No balance found on /mnt/cache"


Recommended Posts

What does "No balance found on /mnt/cache" mean in regards to having just added a 2nd SSD to my cache pool? (Was just one SSD until now.)

 

When I added it and looked at the original, it was saying that balance was running and was showing some data in the balance info box. Now it just says "No balance found on /mnt/cache".  Is that normal?

 

Do I need to manually run the balance? If not, then why/when do you manually hit that button?

 

Thanks!

balance.png.aa4d3220cf26921314802237bf1c6bca.png

Link to comment
  • 2 years later...

Hello,

 

I'm pulling up this old thread because I have a simillar issue and would like to ask for some help in determining if everything is configured and behaving as it should.

 

I upgraded my 500 GB M.2. Cahce Drive with a second one (also 500 GB) to get some redundancy in the cache.

Everything looked OK from my perspective after installing the second drive and it started the automatic balancing and creation of an RAID1.

As the cache was getting full and I had a spare 1TB Samsung EVO SATA SSD laying around, I installed it into my server and added it as a third drive in the cache pool.

After Unraid did its balancing magic, in dashboard everything was looking OK and I had the expected total size of 1TB Cachepool.

 

But Here comes the question.

When inspecting the "btrfs filesystem df" - field in the GUI it is reporting RAID1 for Data but only shows around 500 GB in size.

Furthermore the metadata seams to be in single mode.

 

Looking at the pictures from 'ksignorini' metadata is also in RAID1 what I would expect to be correct.

 

Do I need to run a manual balance to assure data and metadata protection or should I leave it as is?

Thanks in advance for any input from someone who knows more than me about cache drives ;)

 

 

btrfs filesystem df.png

Dashboard.jpg

Link to comment
On 7/3/2019 at 11:41 AM, johnnie.black said:

Run a balance, only for the metadata:

 


btrfs balance start -mconvert=raid1 /mnt/cache

 

My btrfs filesystem df now reports this:

 

Data, RAID1: total=410.00GiB, used=393.46GiB System, RAID1: total=32.00MiB, used=96.00KiB Metadata, RAID1: total=1.00GiB, used=405.33MiB GlobalReserve, single: total=116.19MiB, used=0.00B

 

So everything is in RAID 1 now.

Thanks

 

It only shows 410 GiB Data, but the Pool has 1TB Size. Is this just a bug in displaying the total size, because on dashboard it shows the 1TB as expected, or should I be worried ?

Link to comment
  • 1 year later...

I'm jumping on this post as my situation is similar. Do I have an issue here? The status shows 'No balance found'. I have a cache and cache2 drive, both 1TB SSDs. It appears to be working, but I saw this and wondered if I shouldn't take action.

Just wonder if I should click the 'Balance' button?

Balance.thumb.JPG.43ada9e10a85669692d35cfcd0949b3a.JPG

tower-diagnostics-20201015-1827.zip

Edited by Wayne66
Failed to mention configuration, added diagnostics
Link to comment
  • 10 months later...

Hello...I had made some cache pool changes and wanted to make the entire cache pool RAID0. When I run the RAID0 balance it didn't balance the system and metadata. Do I run the system and metadata conversion manually? If so...what is the command for manually converting the system? Thanks.

 

image.png.1ad1cda126626e4d0c346072928d6d68.png

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Fuggin said:

Hello...I had made some cache pool changes and wanted to make the entire cache pool RAID0. When I run the RAID0 balance it didn't balance the system and metadata. Do I run the system and metadata conversion manually? If so...what is the command for manually converting the system? Thanks.

 

image.png.1ad1cda126626e4d0c346072928d6d68.png

 Actually nevermind....saw the logs that it reduces redundancy if I do that...so as long as the data is RAID0, i guess it should be fine. It'll be better than how I had my cache pool configured before anyways.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Fuggin said:

 Actually nevermind....saw the logs that it reduces redundancy if I do that...so as long as the data is RAID0, i guess it should be fine. It'll be better than how I had my cache pool configured before anyways.

Not sure if you understand. btrfs raid0 is not redundant in the usual sense of having another copy of your data. Also, raid0 isn't the best configuration if you have different sized disks in the pool. 

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.