On 05/02/2014 03:21 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On May 2, 2014, at 2:23 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Something tells me btrfs replace (not device replace, simply
replace) should be moved to btrfs device replace…
The syntax for btrfs device is different though; replace is like
On May 3, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn ahferro...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/02/2014 03:21 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On May 2, 2014, at 2:23 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Something tells me btrfs replace (not device replace, simply
replace) should be moved to btrfs device
On May 3, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On May 3, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn ahferro...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/02/2014 03:21 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Btrfs raid1 with 3+ devices is unique as far as I can tell. It is
something like raid1 (2
Russell Coker posted on Fri, 02 May 2014 11:48:07 +1000 as excerpted:
On Thu, 1 May 2014, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Am I missing something or is it impossible to do a disk replace on BTRFS
right now?
I can delete a device, I can add a device, but I'd like to replace a
device.
On 02/05/14 10:23, Duncan wrote:
Russell Coker posted on Fri, 02 May 2014 11:48:07 +1000 as excerpted:
On Thu, 1 May 2014, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
[snip]
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/1987/CSD-87-391.pdf
Whether a true RAID-1 means just 2 copies or N copies is a
On May 2, 2014, at 2:23 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Something tells me btrfs replace (not device replace, simply replace)
should be moved to btrfs device replace…
The syntax for btrfs device is different though; replace is like balance:
btrfs balance start and btrfs replace
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 01:21:50PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On May 2, 2014, at 2:23 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Something tells me btrfs replace (not device replace, simply replace)
should be moved to btrfs device replace…
The syntax for btrfs device is different though;
On May 2, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 01:21:50PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On May 2, 2014, at 2:23 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Something tells me btrfs replace (not device replace, simply replace)
should be moved to btrfs
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:34:36 Roman Mamedov wrote:
I've a 18 tera hardware raid 5 (areca ARC-1170 w/ 8 3 gig drives) in
Do you sleep well at night knowing that if one disk fails, you end up with
basically a RAID0 of 7x3TB disks? And that if 2nd one encounters unreadable
sector during
Russell Coker posted on Thu, 01 May 2014 11:52:33 +1000 as excerpted:
I've just been doing some experiments with a failing disk used for
backups (so I'm not losing any real data here).
=:^)
The dup option for metadata means that the entire filesystem
structure is intact in spite of having
On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:19 AM, Justin Brown otakujunct...@gmail.com wrote:
I've a 18 tera hardware raid 5 (areca ARC-1170 w/ 8 3 gig drives) in
need of help. Disk usage (du) shows 13 tera allocated yet strangely
enough df shows approx. 780 gigs are free. It seems, somehow, btrfs
has eaten
On Feb 27, 2014, at 12:27 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
This is on i686?
The kernel page cache is limited to 16TB on i686, so effectively your block
device is limited to 16TB. While the file system successfully creates, I
think it's a bug that the mount -t btrfs command
Yes it's an ancient 32 bit machine. There must be a complex bug involved as
the system, when originally mounted, claimed the correct free space and only as
used over time did the discrepancy between used and free grow. I'm afraid I
chose btrfs because it appeared capable of breaking the 16
On Feb 27, 2014, at 1:49 PM, otakujunct...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes it's an ancient 32 bit machine. There must be a complex bug involved as
the system, when originally mounted, claimed the correct free space and only
as used over time did the discrepancy between used and free grow. I'm afraid
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 02:11:19PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Feb 27, 2014, at 1:49 PM, otakujunct...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes it's an ancient 32 bit machine. There must be a complex bug
involved as the system, when originally mounted, claimed the
correct free space and only as used
On Feb 27, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 02:11:19PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Feb 27, 2014, at 1:49 PM, otakujunct...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes it's an ancient 32 bit machine. There must be a complex bug
involved as the system, when
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 05:27:48PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Feb 27, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 02:11:19PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Feb 27, 2014, at 1:49 PM, otakujunct...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes it's an ancient 32 bit
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:19:05 -0600
Justin Brown otakujunct...@gmail.com wrote:
I've a 18 tera hardware raid 5 (areca ARC-1170 w/ 8 3 gig drives) in
Do you sleep well at night knowing that if one disk fails, you end up with
basically a RAID0 of 7x3TB disks? And that if 2nd one encounters
On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:21 PM, Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com wrote:
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-April/109142.html
sigh
No, he didn't fill it with 16TB of data and then have it fail. He
made a new filesystem *larger* than 16TB and tried to mount it:
| On a CentOS
On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:19 AM, Justin Brown otakujunct...@gmail.com wrote:
terra:/var/lib/nobody/fs/ubfterra # btrfs fi df .
Data, single: total=17.58TiB, used=17.57TiB
System, DUP: total=8.00MiB, used=1.93MiB
System, single: total=4.00MiB, used=0.00
Metadata, DUP: total=392.00GiB,
On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:13 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:19 AM, Justin Brown otakujunct...@gmail.com wrote:
terra:/var/lib/nobody/fs/ubfterra # btrfs fi df .
Data, single: total=17.58TiB, used=17.57TiB
System, DUP: total=8.00MiB, used=1.93MiB
Roman Mamedov posted on Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:34:36 +0600 as excerpted:
But then as others mentioned it may be risky to use this FS on 32-bit at
all, so I'd suggest trying anything else only after you reboot into a
64-bit kernel.
Based on what I've read on-list, btrfs is not arch-agnostic, with
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 07:27:06 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Based on what I've read on-list, btrfs is not arch-agnostic, with certain
on-disk sizes set to native kernel page size, etc, so a filesystem
created on one arch may well not work on another.
Question: Does this
Apologies for the late reply, I'd assumed the issue was closed even
given the unusual behavior. My mount options are:
/dev/sdb1 on /var/lib/nobody/fs/ubfterra type btrfs
(rw,noatime,nodatasum,nodatacow,noacl,space_cache,skip_balance)
I only recently added nodatacow and skip_balance in an
Absolutely. I'd like to know the answer to this, as 13 tera will take
a considerable amount of time to back up anywhere, assuming I find a
place. I'm considering rebuilding a smaller raid with newer drives
(it was originally built using 16 250 gig western digital drives, it's
about eleven years
25 matches
Mail list logo
