Bug#863290: src:linux: no warning that btrfs RAID5/6 is buggered up

RAID1 actually needs a warning too. It will not work as "classic" RAID1 e.g. it need to be able to make two copies always to not get stuck in read only mode. You will not loose your data which is a good thing, but to be safe you need a minimum of 3 devices (I would prefer four or more to be on

Bug#863290: src:linux: no warning that btrfs RAID5/6 is buggered up

On 4 June 2017 at 05:46, Svein Engelsgjerd wrote: > > I would like voice my concern as well. Btrfs RAID5/6 really needs a warning. > These days most (if not all) of the problems you see with Btrfs is caused by > the unstable features

Bug#863290: src:linux: no warning that btrfs RAID5/6 is buggered up

Package: src:linux Followup-For: Bug #863290 Dear Maintainer, I would like voice my concern as well. Btrfs RAID5/6 really needs a warning. These days most (if not all) of the problems you see with Btrfs is caused by the unstable features (https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status). RAID5/6

Bug#863290: src:linux: no warning that btrfs RAID5/6 is buggered up

On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 00:19 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: [...] > There's no config setting to disable RAID5/6, such a setting would also make > it hard to migrate to supported raid levels as you need to mount rw in order > to convert.  And, you really hate non-trivial divergences from upstream. >

Bug#863290: src:linux: no warning that btrfs RAID5/6 is buggered up

Package: src:linux Version: 4.9.25-1 Severity: grave Tags: patch (Not sure what an appropriate severity is -- very likely total filesystem loss screams "critical" but "please add a warning" might be even wishlist.) Btrfs, while stable and reliable when using a subset of features, or at least