On 11/14/2013 09:35 AM, Lutz Vieweg wrote:
On 11/14/2013 06:18 PM, George Mitchell wrote:
The read only mount issue is by design. It is intended to make sure
you know exactly what is going
on before you proceed.
Hmmm... but will a server be able to continue its operation (including
writes) o
On 11/14/2013 11:35 AM, Lutz Vieweg wrote:
>
> On 11/14/2013 06:18 PM, George Mitchell wrote:
>> The read only mount issue is by design. It is intended to make sure you
>> know exactly what is going
>> on before you proceed.
>
> Hmmm... but will a server be able to continue its operation (inclu
On 2013-11-14 12:02, Lutz Vieweg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> on a server that so far uses an MD RAID1 with XFS on it we wanted
> to try btrfs, instead.
>
> But even the most basic check for btrfs actually providing
> resilience against one of the physical storage devices failing
> yields a "does not work" r
On 11/14/2013 06:18 PM, George Mitchell wrote:
The read only mount issue is by design. It is intended to make sure you know
exactly what is going
on before you proceed.
Hmmm... but will a server be able to continue its operation (including writes)
on
an already mounted btrfs when a storage d
The read only mount issue is by design. It is intended to make sure you
know exactly what is going on before you proceed. For example, a drive
may actually be fine, but may have been caused by a cable failure. In
that case you would want to fix the cable problem before you break the
mirror b
