It looks like the btrfs code currently uses the total space available on
a disk to determine where it should place the two copies of a file in
RAID1 mode. Wouldn't it make more sense to use the _percentage_ of free
space instead of the number of free bytes?
For example, I have two disks in my arr
On 04/04/2017 12:02 AM, Robert Krig wrote:
> My storage array is BTRFS Raid1 with 4x8TB Drives.
> Wouldn't it be possible to simply disconnect two of those drives, mount
> with -o degraded and still have access (even if read-only) to all my data?
Just jumping on this point: my understanding of BTRF
On 04/03/2017 11:26 AM, Brian B wrote:
> I had a stick of memory go bad in my server, and after removing it my
> BTRFS filesystem seems to be damaged.
>
> If I mount the volume rw and try to use the volume, most actions will
> hang, and I get btrfs-transactio related err
I had a stick of memory go bad in my server, and after removing it my
BTRFS filesystem seems to be damaged.
If I mount the volume rw and try to use the volume, most actions will
hang, and I get btrfs-transactio related errors in the logs.
'btrfsck --repair' seems to sit in a loop, printing the sa
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Brian B posted on Fri, 06 Feb 2015 15:01:30 -0500 as excerpted:
>
>> The only reason I'm doing the [btrfs] RAID1 is for the self-healing. I
>> realize writing large amounts of data will be slower
My laptop has two disks, a SSD and a traditional magnetic disk. I plan
to make a partition on the mag disk equal in size the SSD and set up
BTRFS RAID1. This I know how to do.
The only reason I'm doing the RAID1 is for the self-healing. I realize
writing large amounts of data will be slower than t
