Actually it seems strange that a send operation could corrupt the source subvolume or fs. Why would the send modify the source subvolume in any significant way? The only way I can find to reconcile your observations with mine is that maybe the snapshots get corrupted not by the send operation by itself but when they are generated with -r (readonly, as it is needed to send them). Are the corrupted snapshots you have in machine 2 (the one in which send was never used) readonly? -- 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
- Re: btrfs send and kernel 3.17 David Arendt
- Re: btrfs send and kernel 3.17 David Arendt
- Re: btrfs send and kernel 3.17 Chris Mason
- Re: btrfs send and kernel 3.17 Chris Mason
- Re: btrfs send and kernel 3.17 David Arendt
- Re: btrfs send and kernel 3.17 Chris Mason
- Re: btrfs send and kernel 3.17 David Arendt
- Re: btrfs send and kernel 3.17 john terragon
- Re: btrfs send and kernel 3.17 David Arendt
- Re: btrfs send and kernel 3.17 David Arendt
- Re: btrfs send and kernel 3.17 john terragon
- Re: btrfs send and kernel 3.17 David Arendt
- Re: btrfs send and kernel 3.17 Rich Freeman
- Re: btrfs random filesystem corruption... David Arendt
- Re: btrfs random filesystem corrup... Rich Freeman
- Re: btrfs random filesystem corrup... Duncan
- Re: btrfs random filesystem corrup... admin
- Re: btrfs random filesystem corrup... Duncan
- Re: btrfs random filesystem corrup... Robert White
- Re: btrfs random filesystem corrup... Duncan
- Re: btrfs random filesystem corrup... David Arendt