On Nov 15, 2011, Ilya Dryomov <idryo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:21:00PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 05:32:48PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> > Instead of preventing the removal of devices that would render existing >> > raid10 or raid1 impossible, warn but go ahead with it; the rebalancing >> > code is smart enough to use different block group types. >> > >> > Should the refusal remain, so that we'd only proceed with a >> > newly-introduced --force option or so? >> >> Hmm, going to three devices on raid10 doesn't turn it into >> raid1. It turns it into a degraded raid10.
Oops. I *knew* there was some case I had failed to test. I thought I'd the two relevant cases, but I must have tested only raid0 to single and raid1 to dup. > If user wants to downgrade his FS he > can do that explicitly with restriper. Didn't I just read in another thread that restriper won't let one switch from raid1 to dup without going through single in between? That's what I actually needed to do that drove me to write the patch a while ago after accidentally adding a device to the wrong filesystem, and if restriper won't do it without going through a riskier stage in between (metadata loss due to e.g. a bad block), I wish it was improved so that this is possible. -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
