On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 07:18:52PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote: > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 05:58:43PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 01:55:20PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:45:36PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote: > > > > Where can I the patches to enable dedupe_range on xfs? I tested your > > > > previous devel branch based on Linux v4.7-rc3 with duperemove > > > > (https://github.com/markfasheh/duperemove) and it worked extremely well - > > > > even handling some cases that btrfs still has issues with. I actually > > > > committed the code to enable xfs support in duperemove so anyone can test on > > > > xfs with the dedupe_range patches. > > > > > > > > I'd gladly test your latest patches by doing my usual 'large' duperemove > > > > tests once I can get ahold of the dedupe_range work :) > > > > > > Your best bets are probably the -experimental trees: > > > https://github.com/djwong/linux/commits/djwong-experimental > > > https://github.com/djwong/xfsprogs/commits/djwong-experimental > > > > > > I haven't updated them in a while because I've been busy trying > > > to get reverse-mapping (the start of those patchbombs) into 4.8. > > > > > > Just as a warning, don't put anything critical on those XFS filesystems > > > because there's going to be a disk format update between now and the > > > next time I post the patches because Dave and I decided to cache the > > > block counts for the new btrees in order to speed up mounting. I don't > > > anticipate having time to clean up my dev tree and push to github until > > > a week or two after the merge window closes. > > > > That said, all the craziness from the last two weeks (xfs_scrub sprint > > and the rmapbt review fixes) are now in the -wtf tree, which /should/ > > behave. I've dumped everything there in completely not cleaned up > > format, but this does have the AGF btree block counter stuff I talked > > about above. > > > > https://github.com/djwong/linux/commits/djwong-wtf > > https://github.com/djwong/xfsprogs/commits/djwong-wtf > > Fantastic. Don't worry about corrupting data, I've been doing this long > enough to know to use this only on scratch partitions for now :) I'm in the > middle of a couple other tests but once I'm done there I'll grab those > branches and give them another spin. Typically I'm running through 800G-1TB > on these (with varying duplicated data percentages). > > Silly question which I could just answer by looking at the patches - are you > reporting FIEMAP_EXTENT_SHARED yet for extents with more than one owner? We > use that flag (by comparing SHARED bytes before and after dedupe) to give > people an estimate of how much space was saved. I presume figuring the > shared state of an extent would be as easy as querying the rmap btree, > correct? Yes, it should report FIEMAP_EXTENT_SHARED. In the past it would report exactly which parts of an extent were shared. If a file mapped blocks 30-40 and block 35 was shared, it would report 30-34, 35 (shared), and 36-40. However, btrfs only reports a single extent "30-40 (shared)" so I stopped doing that. Incidentally, GETFSMAP is in that code pile too, in case duperemove wanted to know exactly what's mapped to a block. I'd be wary of it for now though, since it hasn't been through any kind of review and could change in the future. --D > --Mark > > -- > Mark Fasheh _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
