On Jan 30, 2014, at 10:58 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > IOW, just because it's a conversion to single mode doesn't mean we're > dropping a device, and a rebalance to single mode wasn't in fact designed > to drop a device (that's what device delete is for)
Ahh yes, of course. So for two device raid1/raid1 going to two device single/DUP, we'd expect to see both drives still used something close to round robin. And then we'd do a device delete which would migrate chunks. I see a future optimization here :-) to avoid much of the writing this two step technique involves. I'm also seeing many "Error reading 1647012864000, -1" with different block addresses (same -1 though), and also "1659900002304failed to load free space cache for block group" also with different numbers. Maybe hundreds of these. I'm not sure if this is due to the missing device, and it's reporting missing meta data? Or if the working device also has some problem, which depending on the configuration might implicate a single SATA controller. Johan, can you post a full dmesg should be posted somewhere? And also smartctl -x results for the working drive? Chris Murphy -- 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
