On 2016-06-10 15:26, Henk Slager wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Brendan Hide wrote:
On 06/09/2016 03:07 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2016-06-09 08:34, Brendan Hide wrote:
Hey, all
I noticed this odd behaviour while migrating from a 1TB spindle to
On 06/10/2016 09:58 PM, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
On 06/10/2016 09:26 PM, Henk Slager wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Brendan Hide
wrote:
On 06/09/2016 03:07 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
OK, I'm pretty sure I know what was going on in this case. Your
On 06/10/2016 09:26 PM, Henk Slager wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Brendan Hide wrote:
On 06/09/2016 03:07 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
OK, I'm pretty sure I know what was going on in this case. Your
assumption that device delete uses the balance code
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Brendan Hide wrote:
>
>
> On 06/09/2016 03:07 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>>
>> On 2016-06-09 08:34, Brendan Hide wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey, all
>>>
>>> I noticed this odd behaviour while migrating from a 1TB spindle to SSD
>>> (in this case
On 06/09/2016 03:07 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2016-06-09 08:34, Brendan Hide wrote:
Hey, all
I noticed this odd behaviour while migrating from a 1TB spindle to SSD
(in this case on a LUKS-encrypted 200GB partition) - and am curious if
this behaviour I've noted below is expected or
On 2016-06-09 08:34, Brendan Hide wrote:
Hey, all
I noticed this odd behaviour while migrating from a 1TB spindle to SSD
(in this case on a LUKS-encrypted 200GB partition) - and am curious if
this behaviour I've noted below is expected or known. I figure it is a
bug. Depending on the situation,
Hey, all
I noticed this odd behaviour while migrating from a 1TB spindle to SSD
(in this case on a LUKS-encrypted 200GB partition) - and am curious if
this behaviour I've noted below is expected or known. I figure it is a
bug. Depending on the situation, it *could* be severe. In my case it