On 2015-09-22 14:35, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
wrote:
It's not a bad idea, except that it changes established usage, and there are
probably some people out there who depend on the current behavior. If we do
go that way, mount needs to spit out a b
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
wrote:
> It's not a bad idea, except that it changes established usage, and there are
> probably some people out there who depend on the current behavior. If we do
> go that way, mount needs to spit out a big obnoxious warning (as in, not
> thr
On 2015-09-22 08:51, Qu Wenruo wrote:
在 2015年09月22日 19:32, Austin S Hemmelgarn 写道:
On 2015-09-21 16:35, Erkki Seppala wrote:
Gareth Pye writes:
People tend to be looking at BTRFS for a guarantee that data doesn't
die when hardware does. Defaults that defeat that shouldn't be used.
Howeve
在 2015年09月22日 19:32, Austin S Hemmelgarn 写道:
On 2015-09-21 16:35, Erkki Seppala wrote:
Gareth Pye writes:
People tend to be looking at BTRFS for a guarantee that data doesn't
die when hardware does. Defaults that defeat that shouldn't be used.
However, data is no more in danger at startup
On 2015-09-21 16:35, Erkki Seppala wrote:
Gareth Pye writes:
People tend to be looking at BTRFS for a guarantee that data doesn't
die when hardware does. Defaults that defeat that shouldn't be used.
However, data is no more in danger at startup than it is at the moment
when btrfs notices a d
Erkki Seppala posted on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 23:35:39 +0300 as excerpted:
> Gareth Pye writes:
>
>> People tend to be looking at BTRFS for a guarantee that data doesn't
>> die when hardware does. Defaults that defeat that shouldn't be used.
>
> However, data is no more in danger at startup than it
Gareth Pye writes:
> People tend to be looking at BTRFS for a guarantee that data doesn't
> die when hardware does. Defaults that defeat that shouldn't be used.
However, data is no more in danger at startup than it is at the moment
when btrfs notices a drive dropping, yet it permits IO to procee
Goffredo Baroncelli writes:
> Hi Anand,
>
>
> On 2015-09-17 17:18, Anand Jain wrote:
>> it looks like -o degraded is going to be a very obvious feature,
>> I have plans of making it a default feature, and provide -o
>> nodegraded feature instead. Thanks for comments if any.
>>
>> Thanks, Anan
On 2015-09-17 16:18, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 19:00:08 +0200
Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
On 2015-09-17 17:18, Anand Jain wrote:
it looks like -o degraded is going to be a very obvious feature,
I have plans of making it
I think you have stated that in a very polite and friendly way. I'm
pretty sure I'd phrase it less politely :)
Following mdadm's example of an easy option to allow degraded
mounting, but that shouldn't be the default. Anyone with the expertise
to set that option can be expected to implement a way
Anand Jain posted on Thu, 17 Sep 2015 23:18:36 +0800 as excerpted:
>> What I expected to happen:
>> I expected that the [btrfs raid1 data/metadata] system would either
>> start as if nothing were wrong, or would warn me that one half of the
>> mirror was missing and ask if I really wanted to start
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 19:00:08 +0200
> Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>
>> On 2015-09-17 17:18, Anand Jain wrote:
>> > it looks like -o degraded is going to be a very obvious feature,
>> > I have plans of making it a default feature, and provide
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 19:00:08 +0200
Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> On 2015-09-17 17:18, Anand Jain wrote:
> > it looks like -o degraded is going to be a very obvious feature,
> > I have plans of making it a default feature, and provide -o
> > nodegraded feature instead. Thanks for comments if any
Hi Anand,
On 2015-09-17 17:18, Anand Jain wrote:
> it looks like -o degraded is going to be a very obvious feature,
> I have plans of making it a default feature, and provide -o
> nodegraded feature instead. Thanks for comments if any.
>
> Thanks, Anand
I am not sure if there is a "good" def
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
>
> as of now it would/should start normally only when there is an entry -o
> degraded
>
> it looks like -o degraded is going to be a very obvious feature,
> I have plans of making it a default feature, and provide -o
> nodegraded feature inst
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:56 PM, erp...@gmail.com wrote:
> What I expected to happen:
> I expected that the system would either start as if nothing were
> wrong, or would warn me that one half of the mirror was missing and
> ask if I really wanted to start the system with the root array in a
> de
Thanks for the report.
There is a bug that raid1 with one disk missing and trying to mount
for the 2nd time.. it would fail. I am not too sure if in the boot
process would there be mount and then remount/mount again ? If yes then
it is potentially hitting the problem as in the patch below.
Good afternoon,
Earlier today, I tried to set up a storage server using btrfs but ran
into some problems. The goal was to use two disks (4.0TB each) in a
raid1 configuration.
What I did:
1. Attached a single disk to a regular PC configured to boot with UEFI.
2. Booted from a thumb drive that had
18 matches
Mail list logo
