On Sunday 29 of April 2012 04:15:24 Duncan wrote: > > Still, a "zero-superblock" option would be useful for the btrfs tool. > > I'll see what I can do about this. > > Yes, indeed. Particularly since various bits of btrfs functionality > depend on scanning for filesystems (presumably their superblocks), and > output like that in the OP can be confusing indeed, as well as > potentially dangerous in recovery situations, where the wrong one might > be activated by accident. (FWIW, there's an mdadm --zero-superblock > option. I should take note of this thread and be sure I use it when next > I redo my layouts, probably when I switch some of them to btrfs instead, > tho that's going to be a bit as I'm waiting for N-way-mirroring, aka > proper raid1 mode, not the 2-way-only-mirroring that btrfs calls raid1 > mode currently.)
mdadm --zero-superblock removes MD superblock, it doesn't modify the data part of the partition, it just zeroes the MD metadata. Regards, -- Hubert Kario QBS - Quality Business Software 02-656 Warszawa, ul. Ksawerów 30/85 tel. +48 (22) 646-61-51, 646-74-24 www.qbs.com.pl -- 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
