On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 01:41:31PM +0000, Hugo Mills wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 03:36:43PM +0200, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: > > On 09/22/15 14:59, Jeff Mahoney wrote: > > (snip) > > > So if they way we want to prevent the loss of raid type info is by > > > maintaining the last block group allocated with that raid type, fine, > > > but that's a separate discussion. Personally, I think keeping 1GB > > > > At this point I'm much more surprised to learn that the RAID type can > > apparently get "lost" in the first place, and is not persisted > > separately. I mean..wat? > > It's always been like that, unfortunately. > > The code tries to use the RAID type that's already present to work > out what the next allocation should be. If there aren't any chunks in > the FS, the configuration is lost, because it's not stored anywhere > else. It's one of the things that tripped me up badly when I was > failing to rewrite the chunk allocator last year.
Yeah, right now there's no persistent default for the allocator. I'm still hoping that the object properties will magically solve that. -- 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
