36 minutes ago, je82 said:

Here's a log from the XFS Encrypted format if that gives any clue why suddenly the filesystem is taking up so much space when formated via 6.8.0-RC6

Can you post the diagnostics file instead.

2 minutes ago, bonienl said:

Can you post the diagnostics file instead.

Here you go

nas-diagnostics-20191118-1634.zip

Everything else reports the same high usage for disk 10.

Please check if something has been written to the disk by verifying its contents.

1 minute ago, bonienl said:

Everything else reports the same high usage for disk 10.

Please check if something has been written to the disk by verifying its contents.

nothing is written to disk 10, i also formated 2x12tb drives using 6.8.0 and they are both taking up 83gb filesystem, i believe this is also way more then it is suppose to be, that's it... im downgrading and doing the formats because once i put data on these drives i cannot format again.

The rule is 1 GB file system storage per 1 TB disk storage, e.g. 8TB disk = 8GB fs and 12TB disk = 12GB fs.

 

There have been some updates to XFS in the kernel, but I don't know if this causes the high numbers you are seeing.

2 minutes ago, bonienl said:

The rule is 1 GB file system storage per 1 TB disk storage, e.g. 8TB disk = 8GB fs and 12TB disk = 12GB fs.

 

There have been some updates to XFS in the kernel, but I don't know if this causes the high numbers you are seeing.

downgraded and now unraid is telling me these xfs systems formated with 6.8.0 needs to be encrypted, definitely some bug in the rc release.

 

All 3 drive were all xfs encrypted when i was on 6.8.0-rc6. Formating now via 6.7.2 stable.

2 minutes ago, je82 said:

definitely some bug in the rc release.

Please open a bug report under Prereleases

The Linux  5.x kernels are meant to have a lot of new features.   I wonder if this has increased the overhead?  

Now formated via 6.7.2 Stable and everything is normal.

1 minute ago, bonienl said:

Please open a bug report under Prereleases

Can i just put a link to this thread? I'm not sure how to technically explain the problem for LimeTech to give it time.

1 minute ago, je82 said:

Can i just put a link to this thread? I'm not sure how to technically explain the problem for LimeTech to give it time.

Yes, give a short explanation and include a link to this topic

4 minutes ago, itimpi said:

I wonder if this has increased the overhead?

The overhead is excessive, way more than I would expect.

3 minutes ago, bonienl said:

Yes, give a short explanation and include a link to this topic

Done!

I've got 3 empty 8TB drives. 1 shows 8GB used as expected for the XFS filesystem. 2 others show 55.8GB used. I've checked via all methods I know of. SMB, Krusader, Linux command line, unbalanced tool. These disks are all empty but 2 are using an extra 47GB or so for the filesystem exactly as mentioned here in this thread. I did format some of these recently in RC 6.9 but I'm not sure exactly which ones.

 

Any ideas on how I can free up this space?

Edited November 9, 20205 yr by Vaggeto

12 hours ago, Vaggeto said:

Any ideas on how I can free up this space?

It's normal with current xfs, it uses more space for metadata, only option would be to format manually or with and older Unraid release.

On 11/10/2020 at 1:45 AM, JorgeB said:

It's normal with current xfs, it uses more space for metadata, only option would be to format manually or with and older Unraid release.

Hmmm interesting. That's a big jump in usage for metadata. Do you know what additional functionality that brings? I see earlier in this thread that was thought to be a clear error.

48 minutes ago, Vaggeto said:

Do you know what additional functionality that brings? I see earlier in this thread that was thought to be a clear error.

Most part is likely for the new reflink support, could be others, don't really follow xfs development.