On 20/09/17 22:45, Kai Krakow wrote:
Am Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:51:15 +0200
schrieb Psalle <psalleets...@gmail.com>:
On 19/09/17 17:47, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
(...)
A better option if you can afford to remove a single device from
that array temporarily is to use bcache. Bcache h
On 19/09/17 17:47, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
(...)
A better option if you can afford to remove a single device from that
array temporarily is to use bcache. Bcache has one specific advantage
in this case, multiple backend devices can share the same cache
device. This means you don't
This is a test system so I'm reporting in case this is unknown but no
data at risk.
This filesystem was created with a device (well, actually partition)
/dev/sdb3, then /dev/sdc{2,3,4} were added, and finally I attempted to
remove /dev/sdb3. No profiles were passed at any point.
Briefly
On 05/02/16 20:36, Mackenzie Meyer wrote:
RAID 6 stability?
I'll say more: currently, btrfs is in a state of flux where if you don't
have a very recent kernel that's the first recommendation you're going
to receive in case of problems. This means going out of stable packages
in most distros.
On 05/02/16 20:36, Mackenzie Meyer wrote:
Hello,
I've tried checking around on google but can't find information
regarding the RAM requirements of BTRFS and most of the topics on
stability seem quite old.
To keep my answer short: every time I've tried (offline) deduplication
or raid5 pools
.
-Psalle.
On 04/01/16 18:00, Alphazo wrote:
Hello,
My picture library today lies on an external hard drive that I sync on
a regular basis with a couple of servers and other external drives.
I'm interested by the on-the-fly checksum brought by btrfs and would
like to get your opinion
d it isn't planned to be
this way, AFAIK). I can foresee consistency difficulties, but that seems
hardly insurmountable if its being done for raid1?
Thanks in advance,
Psalle.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to major
