On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 3:15 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> I'd like to make sure everyone, including developers and end-users, are
> fine with the restrict error-out behavior.
Yes, please error out, as a start. Requesting this was on my
btrfs-to-do list. A device generation mismatch from a drive going
On 2018年06月28日 22:36, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 03:04:43PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> There is a reporter considering btrfs raid1 has a major design flaw
>> which can't handle nodatasum files.
>>
>> Despite his incorrect expectation, btrfs indeed doesn't handle device
>> gene
On 2018年06月28日 16:04, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 28.06.2018 10:04, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> There is a reporter considering btrfs raid1 has a major design flaw
>> which can't handle nodatasum files.
>>
>> Despite his incorrect expectation, btrfs indeed doesn't handle device
>> generation misma
On 28.06.2018 10:04, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> There is a reporter considering btrfs raid1 has a major design flaw
> which can't handle nodatasum files.
>
> Despite his incorrect expectation, btrfs indeed doesn't handle device
> generation mismatch well.
I think this is getting a bit personal, no nee
On 2018-06-28 10:36 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
>
> Uhm, that'd be a nasty regression for the regular (no-nodatacow) case.
> The vast majority of data is fine, and extents that have been written to
> while a device is missing will be either placed elsewhere (if the filesystem
> knew it was degraded
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 03:04:43PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> There is a reporter considering btrfs raid1 has a major design flaw
> which can't handle nodatasum files.
>
> Despite his incorrect expectation, btrfs indeed doesn't handle device
> generation mismatch well.
>
> This means if one device
On 28/06/2018 09:04, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Despite his incorrect expectation, btrfs indeed doesn't handle device
> generation mismatch well.
>
> This means if one devices missed and re-appeared, even its generation
> no longer matches with the rest device pool, btrfs does nothing to it,
> but treat
On 2018年06月28日 21:26, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> On 06/28/2018 04:02 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> Also CC Anand Jain, since he is also working on various device related
>> work, and an expert on this.
>>
>> Especially I'm not pretty sure if such enhancement is already on his
>> agenda or there are alre
On 06/28/2018 04:02 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Also CC Anand Jain, since he is also working on various device related
work, and an expert on this.
Especially I'm not pretty sure if such enhancement is already on his
agenda or there are already some unmerged patch for this.
Right, some of the pat
Also CC Anand Jain, since he is also working on various device related
work, and an expert on this.
Especially I'm not pretty sure if such enhancement is already on his
agenda or there are already some unmerged patch for this.
Thanks,
Qu
On 2018年06月28日 15:04, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> There is a report
> -Original Message-
> From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org ow...@vger.kernel.org> On Behalf Of Qu Wenruo
> Sent: Thursday, 28 June 2018 5:16 PM
> To: Nikolay Borisov ; Qu Wenruo ;
> linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: Do extra device gene
On 2018年06月28日 15:17, Su Yue wrote:
>
>
> On 06/28/2018 03:04 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> There is a reporter considering btrfs raid1 has a major design flaw
>> which can't handle nodatasum files.
>>
>> Despite his incorrect expectation, btrfs indeed doesn't handle device
>> generation mismatch we
On 2018年06月28日 15:06, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 28.06.2018 10:04, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> There is a reporter considering btrfs raid1 has a major design flaw
>> which can't handle nodatasum files.
>>
>> Despite his incorrect expectation, btrfs indeed doesn't handle device
>> generation misma
On 06/28/2018 03:04 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
There is a reporter considering btrfs raid1 has a major design flaw
which can't handle nodatasum files.
Despite his incorrect expectation, btrfs indeed doesn't handle device
generation mismatch well.
Just say " btrfs indeed doesn't handle device gene
On 28.06.2018 10:04, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> There is a reporter considering btrfs raid1 has a major design flaw
> which can't handle nodatasum files.
>
> Despite his incorrect expectation, btrfs indeed doesn't handle device
> generation mismatch well.
>
> This means if one devices missed and re-ap
There is a reporter considering btrfs raid1 has a major design flaw
which can't handle nodatasum files.
Despite his incorrect expectation, btrfs indeed doesn't handle device
generation mismatch well.
This means if one devices missed and re-appeared, even its generation
no longer matches with the
16 matches
Mail list logo
