On 04/30/2016 12:37 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:06:18AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
From the comments that commit[1] deleted
- /*
- * we add in the count of missing devices because we want
- * to make sure that any RAID levels on a degraded FS
- * continue to be honored.
- *
appear to me that automatic reduced-chunk-allocation
when RAID1 is degraded wasn't in the original design.
which also introduced unpleasant things like automatically
allocating single chunks when RAID1 is mounted in degraded
mode, which will hinder further RAID1 mount in degraded
mode.
Agreed. As the automatic conversion cannot be turned off, it causes some
surprises. We've opposed against such things in the past, so I'm for
not doing the 'single' allocations. Independly, I got a feedback from a
user who liked the proposed change..
yes.
And now to fix the original issue that is - chunk allocation
fails when RAID1 is degraded, The reason for the problem
seems to be that we had the devs_min attribute for RAID1
set wrongly. Correcting this also means that its time to
fix the RAID1 fixmes in the functions __btrfs_alloc_chunk()
patch [2] does that, and is for review.
This means we'd allow full writes to a degraded raid1 filesystem. This
can bring surprises as well. The question is what to do if the device
pops out, some writes happen, and then is added.
One option is to set some bit in the degraded filesystem that degraded
writes happened.
After that, mounting the whole filesystem would
recommend running scrub before dropping the bit.
Right some flag should tell to fix the degraded chunks. Any
suggestion on naming? (as of now calling it degraded-chunk-write-flag).
Also as of now I think its ok to fail the mount when its found
that both of the RAID1 devices has degraded-chunk-write-flag set
(a split brain situation) so that user can mount one of the device
and freshly btrfs-device-add the other.
Forcing a read-only
mount here would be similar to read-only degraded mount, so I guess we'd
have to somehow deal with the missing writes.
I haven't thought about all details, the raid1 auto-repair can handle
corrupted data, I think missing metadata should be handled as well and
repaired.
I found raid5 scrub nicely handles the missing writes. However
RAID1 (and guess raid10 as well) needs balance. (I would like to
keep it as it is as of now). IMO RAID1 should do what RAID5 is doing.
--
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
--
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
