Chris Murphy posted on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:26:16 -0600 as excerpted:
The other thing, clearly the OP is surprised it's taking anywhere near
this long. Had he known in advance, he probably would have made a
different choice.
I had a longer version that I wrote first, but decided was /too/ long
On Sep 29, 2013, at 1:13 AM, Fredrik Tolf fred...@dolda2000.com wrote:
Is there any way I can find out what's going on?
For whatever reason, it started out with every drive practically full, in terms
of chunk allocation.
e.g.devid5 size 2.73TB used 2.71TB path /dev/sdh1
I don't
On Sep 30, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Sep 29, 2013, at 1:13 AM, Fredrik Tolf fred...@dolda2000.com wrote:
Is there any way I can find out what's going on?
For whatever reason, it started out with every drive practically full, in
terms of chunk
Chris Murphy posted on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:05:36 -0600 as excerpted:
It probably seems weird to add drives to remove drives, but sometimes
(always?) Btrfs really gets a bit piggish about allocating a lot more
chunks than there is data. Or maybe it's not deallocating space as
aggressively as
On Sep 30, 2013, at 10:43 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Meanwhile, I really do have to question the use case where the risks of a
single dead device killing a raid0 (or for that matter, running still
experimental btrfs) are fine, but spending days doing data maintenance on
data
