Marc MERLIN posted on Sun, 16 Mar 2014 15:20:26 -0700 as excerpted: > Do I have other options? > (data is not important at all, I just want to learn how to deal with > such a case with the current code)
First just a note that you hijacked Mr Manana's patch thread. Replying to a post and changing the topic (the usual cause of such hijacks) does NOT change the thread, as the References and In-Reply-To headers still includes the Message-IDs from the original thread, and that's what good clients thread by since the subject line isn't a reliable means of threading. To start a NEW thread, don't reply to an existing thread, compose a NEW message, starting a NEW thread. =:^) Back on topic... Since you don't have to worry about the data I'd suggest blowing it away and starting over. Btrfs raid5/6 code is known to be incomplete at this point, to work in normal mode and write everything out, but with incomplete recovery code. So I'd treat it like the raid-0 mode it effectively is, and consider it lost if a device drops. There *IS* a post from an earlier thread where someone mentioned a recovery under some specific circumstance that worked for him, but I'd consider that the exception not the norm since the code is known to be incomplete and I think he just got lucky and didn't hit the particular missing code in his specific case. Certainly you could try to go back and see what he did and under what conditions, and that might actually be worth doing if you had valuable data you'd be losing otherwise, but since you don't, while of course it's up to you, I'd not bother were it me. Which I haven't. My use-case wouldn't be looking at raid5/6 (or raid0) anyway, but even if it were, I'd not touch the current code unless it /was/ just for something I'd consider risking on a raid0. Other than pure testing, the /only/ case I'd consider btrfs raid5/6 for right now, would be something that I'd consider raid0 riskable currently, but with the bonus of it upgrading "for free" to raid5/6 when the code is complete without any further effort on my part, since it's actually being written as raid5/6 ATM, the recovery simply can't be relied upon as raid5/6, so in recovery terms you're effectively running raid0 until it can be. Other than that and for /pure/ testing, I just don't see the point of even thinking about raid5/6 at this point. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- 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
