On 2017-02-08 08:46, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 07:50:22AM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
It is exponentially safer in BTRFS
to run single data single metadata than half raid1 data half raid1 metadata.
Why?
To convert to profiles _designed_ for a single device and
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 07:50:22AM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> It is exponentially safer in BTRFS
> to run single data single metadata than half raid1 data half raid1 metadata.
Why?
> To convert to profiles _designed_ for a single device and then convert back
> to raid1 when I got
On 2017-02-07 22:21, Hans Deragon wrote:
Greetings,
On 2017-02-02 10:06, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2017-02-02 09:25, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 07:49:50AM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
This is a severe bug that makes a not all that uncommon (albeit bad) use
case
Greetings,
On 2017-02-02 10:06, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2017-02-02 09:25, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 07:49:50AM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>>> This is a severe bug that makes a not all that uncommon (albeit bad) use
>>> case fail completely. The fix had no
Austin S. Hemmelgarn posted on Thu, 02 Feb 2017 07:49:50 -0500 as
excerpted:
> I think (although I'm not sure about it) that this:
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg47283.html is the first
> posting of the patch series.
Yes. That looks like it. Thanks.
--
Duncan - List replies
On 2017-02-02 09:25, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 07:49:50AM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
This is a severe bug that makes a not all that uncommon (albeit bad) use
case fail completely. The fix had no dependencies itself and
I don't see what's bad in mounting a RAID
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 07:49:50AM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> This is a severe bug that makes a not all that uncommon (albeit bad) use
> case fail completely. The fix had no dependencies itself and
I don't see what's bad in mounting a RAID degraded. Yeah, it provides no
redundancy but
On 2017-02-01 17:48, Duncan wrote:
Adam Borowski posted on Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:55:30 +0100 as excerpted:
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:23:16AM +, Duncan wrote:
Hans Deragon posted on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:51:22 -0500 as excerpted:
But the current scenario makes it difficult for me to put
Adam Borowski posted on Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:55:30 +0100 as excerpted:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:23:16AM +, Duncan wrote:
>> Hans Deragon posted on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:51:22 -0500 as excerpted:
>> > But the current scenario makes it difficult for me to put redundancy
>> > back into service!
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:23:16AM +, Duncan wrote:
> Hans Deragon posted on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:51:22 -0500 as excerpted:
> > But the current scenario makes it difficult for me to put redundancy
> > back into service! How much time did I waited until I find the mailing
> > list, subscribe to
Hans Deragon posted on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:51:22 -0500 as excerpted:
> But the current scenario makes it difficult for me to put redundancy
> back into service! How much time did I waited until I find the mailing
> list, subscribe to it, post my email and get an answer? Wouldn't it be
> better
On 2017-01-30 07:18, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2017-01-28 04:17, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>> 27.01.2017 23:03, Austin S. Hemmelgarn пишет:
>>> On 2017-01-27 11:47, Hans Deragon wrote:
On 2017-01-24 14:48, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 01:57:24PM -0500, Hans
On 2017-01-28 04:17, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
27.01.2017 23:03, Austin S. Hemmelgarn пишет:
On 2017-01-27 11:47, Hans Deragon wrote:
On 2017-01-24 14:48, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 01:57:24PM -0500, Hans Deragon wrote:
If I remove 'ro' from the option, I cannot get the
27.01.2017 23:03, Austin S. Hemmelgarn пишет:
> On 2017-01-27 11:47, Hans Deragon wrote:
>> On 2017-01-24 14:48, Adam Borowski wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 01:57:24PM -0500, Hans Deragon wrote:
>>>
If I remove 'ro' from the option, I cannot get the filesystem mounted
because of
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 03:03:18PM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2017-01-27 11:47, Hans Deragon wrote:
> > However, as a user, I am seeking for an easy, no maintenance raid
> > solution. I wish that if a drive fails, the btrfs filesystem still
> > mounts rw and leaves the OS running,
On 2017-01-27 11:47, Hans Deragon wrote:
On 2017-01-24 14:48, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 01:57:24PM -0500, Hans Deragon wrote:
If I remove 'ro' from the option, I cannot get the filesystem mounted
because of the following error: BTRFS: missing devices(1) exceeds the
On 2017-01-24 14:48, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 01:57:24PM -0500, Hans Deragon wrote:
If I remove 'ro' from the option, I cannot get the filesystem mounted
because of the following error: BTRFS: missing devices(1) exceeds the
limit(0), writeable mount is not allowed So I am
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 01:57:24PM -0500, Hans Deragon wrote:
> If I remove 'ro' from the option, I cannot get the filesystem mounted
> because of the following error:
>
> BTRFS: missing devices(1) exceeds the limit(0), writeable mount is not
> allowed
>
> So I am stuck. I can only mount the
Greetings,
Warning: Btrfs user here; no knowledge of the inside working of btrfs.
If I am in the wrong mailing list, please redirect me and accept my
apologies.
At home, lacking of disks and free SATA ports, I created a raid1 btrfs
filesystem by converting an existing single btrfs instance
19 matches
Mail list logo
