Hi, I finally did it : patched the kernel and removed the device. As expected he did not scream since there was nothing at all on the device. Now I'm checking that everything is fine: scrub (in read only) check (in read only) but I think that everything will be OK If not, I will rebuild the array from scratch (I did managed to save my data)
Thank you both for your guidance. I think that a warning should be put in the wiki in order for other user to not do the same mistake I did : never ever use the single mode I will try to do it soon Again thank you Le 20/09/2016 à 23:15, Chris Murphy a écrit : > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Alexandre Poux <pums...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Le 20/09/2016 à 21:46, Chris Murphy a écrit : >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Alexandre Poux <pums...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Le 20/09/2016 à 21:11, Chris Murphy a écrit : >>>>> And no backup? Umm, I'd resolve that sooner than anything else. >>>> Yeah you are absolutely right, this was a temporary solution which came >>>> to be not that temporary. >>>> And I regret it already... >>> Well on the bright side, if this were LVM or mdadm linear/concat >>> array, the whole thing would be toast because any other file system >>> would have lost too much fs metadata on the missing device. >>> >>>>> It >>>>> should be true that it'll tolerate a read only mount indefinitely, but >>>>> read write? Not sure. This sort of edge case isn't well tested at all >>>>> seeing as it required changing the kernel to reduce safe guards. So >>>>> all bets are off the whole thing could become unmountable, not even >>>>> read only, and then it's a scraping job. >>>> I'm not that crazy, I tried the patch inside a virtual machine on >>>> virtual drives... >>>> And since it's only virtual, it may not work on the real partition... >>> Are you sure the virtual setup lacked a CHUNK_ITEM on the missing >>> device? That might be what pinned it in that case. >> In fact in my virtual setup there was more chunk missing (1 metadata 1 >> System and 1 Data). >> I will try to do a setup closer to my real one. > Probably the reason why that missing device has no used chunks is > because it's so small. Btrfs allocates block groups to devices with > the most unallocated space first. Only once the unallocated space is > even (approximately) on all devices would it allocate a block group to > the small device. > > -- 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
