On 4 March 2016 at 07:55, Duncan <[email protected]> wrote: > Nicholas D Steeves posted on Thu, 03 Mar 2016 16:21:53 -0500 as excerpted: > >>> Of course either way assumes you don't run into some bug that will >>> prevent removal of that chunk, perhaps exactly the same one that kept >>> it from being removed during the normal raid1 conversion. If that >>> happens, >>> the devs may well be interested in tracking it down, as I'm not aware >>> of anything similar being posted to the list. >> >> I've made up-to-date backups of this volume. Is one of these two >> methods more likely to trigger a potential bug? Also, this potential >> bug, if it's not just cosmetic wouldn't silently corrupt something in my >> pool, right? It's when things won't fail loudly and immediately that >> concerns me, but if that's not an issue then I'd prefer to try to gather >> potentially useful data. > > I don't actually expect a bug.
I used btrfs balance start -dprofiles=single, because you mentioned you usually use btrfs balance start -dusage=0, in the hopes that I might be able to find a useful bug. Nope! 100% trouble free, and very fast. Thank you, Nicholas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
