On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 10:18:03AM +0100, Christian Völker wrote: > Hi Hugo, > > thanks for the quick reply. Regarding version- I prefer to use stable > Linux versions....and I am not going to upgrade just btrfs outside of > the verndors builds. So I am stuck happily with this version. And I run > Linux since more than 10years, so I am really fine with it, I guess :D
Well, btrfs-progs 0.19 was last released several years ago. If your kernel is of the same kind of age, then you're going to be seeing a whole load of really nasty data-corrupting or filesystem-breaking bugs which have since been fixed. Basically, if something goes wrong with your FS when you're running a kernel that old, the main rsponse you'll get is, "well, that was silly of you, wasn't it?", and you'll have to make a new filesystem and restore from your backups and hope it doesn't happen again. I would currently recommend running a 4.4 kernel or later. If you want a "stable" kernel version from a distribution, and want some kind of support for it when it goes wrong, you're probably going to have to pay someone (Red Hat or SuSE, most likely) to support your configuraion. Hugo. > And thanks again for your proposal. Yes, your command worked. > > I had to tell betrfs the devid! > > So this did NOT work: > > btrfs fi resize max /srv/share/ > > Instead the following two commands worked: > > btrfs fi resize 1:max /srv/share/ > btrfs fi resize 2:max /srv/share/ > > And now boths phydevices show the correct size. > > This sound really strange for me that I have to tell btrfs to resize > just a single disk insteag of automatically resizing all disks...I bet > next time I have it forgotten again :-( > > > Greetings > > > Christian > > > -- Hugo Mills | In one respect at least, the Martians are a happy hugo@... carfax.org.uk | people: they have no lawyers http://carfax.org.uk/ | PGP: E2AB1DE4 | John Carter, A Princess of Mars
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
