On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:35:56AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> At 03/07/2017 08:36 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > Not so for -draid5 -mraid1, unfortunately:
>
> Unfortunately, for raid5 there are still unfixed bugs.
> In fact, some raid5/6 bugs are already fixed, but still not merged yet.
>
> > [/mnt
At 03/07/2017 08:36 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 04:58:49PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Btrfs currently uses num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures to do global
check for tolerated missing device.
Although the one-size-fit-all solution is quite safe, it's too strict if
data and m
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 04:58:49PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Btrfs currently uses num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures to do global
> check for tolerated missing device.
>
> Although the one-size-fit-all solution is quite safe, it's too strict if
> data and metadata has different duplication level.
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 16:58:49 +0800
Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Btrfs currently uses num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures to do global
> check for tolerated missing device.
>
> Although the one-size-fit-all solution is quite safe, it's too strict
> if data and metadata has different duplication level.
>
>
