If the old btrfs is over written with newer btrfs SB, and if mkfs.btrfs
is not overwriting all the copies of SB then its a mkfs.btrfs bug.
Nope.
If the new btrfs is a smaller one than original btrfs, the 2nd super can
still be there.
Oh right, the mkfs.btrfs -b option, where we don'
On 2017年12月08日 22:02, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> On 12/08/2017 08:51 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>> On 2017-12-08 02:57, Anand Jain wrote:
>>> -EXPERIMENTAL-
>>> As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount,
>>> this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go a
> -Original Message-
> From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-btrfs-
> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Austin S. Hemmelgarn
> Sent: Friday, 8 December 2017 11:51 PM
> To: Anand Jain ; linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: self
On 12/08/2017 08:51 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2017-12-08 02:57, Anand Jain wrote:
-EXPERIMENTAL-
As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount,
this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go and read backup
copy.
I like the concept, and actually think
On 2017年12月08日 21:05, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2017-12-08 07:59, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2017年12月08日 20:51, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>>> On 2017-12-08 02:57, Anand Jain wrote:
-EXPERIMENTAL-
As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail
mount,
>>
On 2017-12-08 07:59, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2017年12月08日 20:51, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2017-12-08 02:57, Anand Jain wrote:
-EXPERIMENTAL-
As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount,
this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go and read backup
copy.
I
On 12/08/2017 08:12 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
On 8.12.2017 12:33, Anand Jain wrote:
On 12/08/2017 04:40 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
On 8.12.2017 09:57, Anand Jain wrote:
-EXPERIMENTAL-
As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount,
this is an experimental pa
On 2017年12月08日 20:51, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2017-12-08 02:57, Anand Jain wrote:
>> -EXPERIMENTAL-
>> As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount,
>> this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go and read backup
>> copy.
> I like the concept, and actu
On 2017年12月08日 20:41, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> On 12/08/2017 08:02 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2017年12月08日 19:48, Anand Jain wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/08/2017 07:01 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2017年12月08日 18:39, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> On 12/08/2017 04:17 PM, Qu Wenruo
On 2017-12-08 02:57, Anand Jain wrote:
-EXPERIMENTAL-
As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount,
this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go and read backup
copy.
I like the concept, and actually think this should be default behavior
on a filesystem that's
On 12/08/2017 08:02 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2017年12月08日 19:48, Anand Jain wrote:
On 12/08/2017 07:01 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2017年12月08日 18:39, Anand Jain wrote:
On 12/08/2017 04:17 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2017年12月08日 15:57, Anand Jain wrote:
-EXPERIMENTAL-
As of now when primary
On 12/08/2017 09:17 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2017年12月08日 15:57, Anand Jain wrote:
>> -EXPERIMENTAL-
>> As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount,
>> this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go and read backup
>> copy.
>
> Just curious about in which r
On 8.12.2017 12:33, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> On 12/08/2017 04:40 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8.12.2017 09:57, Anand Jain wrote:
>>> -EXPERIMENTAL-
>>> As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount,
>>> this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go a
On 2017年12月08日 19:48, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> On 12/08/2017 07:01 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2017年12月08日 18:39, Anand Jain wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/08/2017 04:17 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2017年12月08日 15:57, Anand Jain wrote:
> -EXPERIMENTAL-
> As of now when primary S
On 12/08/2017 07:01 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2017年12月08日 18:39, Anand Jain wrote:
On 12/08/2017 04:17 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2017年12月08日 15:57, Anand Jain wrote:
-EXPERIMENTAL-
As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount,
this is an experimental patch which
On 2017年12月08日 18:39, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> On 12/08/2017 04:17 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2017年12月08日 15:57, Anand Jain wrote:
>>> -EXPERIMENTAL-
>>> As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount,
>>> this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go and r
On 12/08/2017 04:17 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2017年12月08日 15:57, Anand Jain wrote:
-EXPERIMENTAL-
As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount,
this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go and read backup
copy.
Just curious about in which real world case t
On 12/08/2017 04:40 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
On 8.12.2017 09:57, Anand Jain wrote:
-EXPERIMENTAL-
As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount,
this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go and read backup
copy.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
fs/btrfs
On 8.12.2017 09:57, Anand Jain wrote:
> -EXPERIMENTAL-
> As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount,
> this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go and read backup
> copy.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
> ---
> fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 8 +++-
> fs/btrfs/
On 2017年12月08日 15:57, Anand Jain wrote:
> -EXPERIMENTAL-
> As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount,
> this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go and read backup
> copy.
Just curious about in which real world case that backup super block can
help.
At lea
-EXPERIMENTAL-
As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount,
this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go and read backup
copy.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 8 +++-
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 10 +++---
2 files changed, 14 insertions(+
21 matches
Mail list logo
