> > No, a balance isn't going to help here. RAID-0 requires a minimum > of 2 chunks in a block group. With two disks, you're only going to be > able to fill the smallest one before you run out of space. > > > Isn't this going to be a problem for anyone restoring from a backup? Lots of > > data heading to btrfs without a pause. > > Again, not the issue here. > > Hugo. >
Thank you HH for the explanation. What's the 'solution' though to Hugo's situation? By 'solution' I mean the highest-utility way of dealing with unequal devices problem in a two or more -up setting. (I understand that we're violating the expectations of RAID0 and have read the http://btrfs.ipv5.de/index.php?title=FAQ#How_much_space_do_I_get_with_unequal_devices_in_RAID-1_mode.3F about RAID1.) Disks are (were) getting cheaper per MB faster than I could run out of space! So I have increasing size array of drives - apparently the similar situation as Hugo (I have three btrfs-ready drives). I'm struggling how to mkfs.btrfs with this new knowledge whilst resolving it with the btrfs storage pool concept. I stress there is a difficulty with my understanding not btrfs. Kind regards. Al. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
