On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 07:20:06AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2017-06-26 22:49, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >
> >
> > At 06/27/2017 09:59 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 06/27/2017 09:05 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> At 06/27/2017 02:59 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu,
On 2017-06-26 22:49, Qu Wenruo wrote:
At 06/27/2017 09:59 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
On 06/27/2017 09:05 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
At 06/27/2017 02:59 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 09:34:35AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Btrfs currently uses num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures to do
At 06/27/2017 09:59 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
On 06/27/2017 09:05 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
At 06/27/2017 02:59 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 09:34:35AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Btrfs currently uses num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures to do global
check for tolerated missing devi
On 06/27/2017 09:05 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
At 06/27/2017 02:59 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 09:34:35AM +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 i
At 06/27/2017 02:59 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 09:34:35AM +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 me
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 09:34:35AM +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.
