On 2017-03-09 04:49, Peter Grandi wrote:
Consider the common case of a 3-member volume with a 'raid1'
target profile: if the sysadm thinks that a drive should be
replaced, the goal is to take it out *without* converting every
chunk to 'single', because with 2-out-of-3 devices half of the
chunks
>> Consider the common case of a 3-member volume with a 'raid1'
>> target profile: if the sysadm thinks that a drive should be
>> replaced, the goal is to take it out *without* converting every
>> chunk to 'single', because with 2-out-of-3 devices half of the
>> chunks will still be fully
On 2017-03-05 14:13, Peter Grandi wrote:
What makes me think that "unmirrored" 'raid1' profile chunks
are "not a thing" is that it is impossible to remove
explicitly a member device from a 'raid1' profile volume:
first one has to 'convert' to 'single', and then the 'remove'
copies back to the
On 2017-03-03 15:10, Kai Krakow wrote:
Am Fri, 3 Mar 2017 07:19:06 -0500
schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" :
On 2017-03-03 00:56, Kai Krakow wrote:
Am Thu, 2 Mar 2017 11:37:53 +0100
schrieb Adam Borowski :
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:30:37PM -0700,
[ ... on the difference between number of devices and length of
a chunk-stripe ... ]
> Note: possibilities get even more interesting with a 4-device
> volume with 'raid1' profile chunks, and similar case involving
> other profiles than 'raid1'.
Consider for example a 4-device volume with 2
>> What makes me think that "unmirrored" 'raid1' profile chunks
>> are "not a thing" is that it is impossible to remove
>> explicitly a member device from a 'raid1' profile volume:
>> first one has to 'convert' to 'single', and then the 'remove'
>> copies back to the remaining devices the 'single'
Chris Murphy wrote:
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Again, my data is fine. The problem I'm having is this:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/Documentation/filesystems/btrfs.txt?id=refs/tags/v4.10.1
Which
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> Again, my data is fine. The problem I'm having is this:
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/Documentation/filesystems/btrfs.txt?id=refs/tags/v4.10.1
>
> Which says in the
Am Fri, 3 Mar 2017 07:19:06 -0500
schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" :
> On 2017-03-03 00:56, Kai Krakow wrote:
> > Am Thu, 2 Mar 2017 11:37:53 +0100
> > schrieb Adam Borowski :
> >
> >> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:30:37PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
On 2017-03-03 00:56, Kai Krakow wrote:
Am Thu, 2 Mar 2017 11:37:53 +0100
schrieb Adam Borowski :
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:30:37PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
[1717713.408675] BTRFS warning (device dm-8): missing devices (1)
exceeds the limit (0), writeable mount is not
On 2017-03-02 19:47, Peter Grandi wrote:
[ ... ] Meanwhile, the problem as I understand it is that at
the first raid1 degraded writable mount, no single-mode chunks
exist, but without the second device, they are created. [
... ]
That does not make any sense, unless there is a fundamental
On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 06:56:22AM +0100, Kai Krakow wrote:
> > > I don't understand what problem this proscription is trying to
> > > avoid. If it's OK to mount rw,degraded once, then it's OK to allow
> > > it twice. If it's not OK twice, it's not OK once.
> >
> > Well, yeah. The current
AFAIK, no, it hasn't been fixed, at least not in mainline, because the
patches to fix it got stuck in some long-running project patch queue
(IIRC, the one for on-degraded auto-device-replace), with no timeline
known to me on mainline merge.
Meanwhile, the problem as I understand it is that at
Am Thu, 2 Mar 2017 11:37:53 +0100
schrieb Adam Borowski :
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:30:37PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > [1717713.408675] BTRFS warning (device dm-8): missing devices (1)
> > exceeds the limit (0), writeable mount is not allowed
> > [1717713.446453] BTRFS
Peter Grandi posted on Fri, 03 Mar 2017 00:47:46 + as excerpted:
>> [ ... ] Meanwhile, the problem as I understand it is that at the first
>> raid1 degraded writable mount, no single-mode chunks exist, but without
>> the second device, they are created. [ ... ]
>
> That does not make any
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> At 03/03/2017 09:15 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> [1805985.267438] BTRFS info (device dm-6): allowing degraded mounts
>> [1805985.267566] BTRFS info (device dm-6): disk space caching is enabled
>> [1805985.267676]
At 03/03/2017 09:15 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
[1805985.267438] BTRFS info (device dm-6): allowing degraded mounts
[1805985.267566] BTRFS info (device dm-6): disk space caching is enabled
[1805985.267676] BTRFS info (device dm-6): has skinny extents
[1805987.187857] BTRFS warning (device dm-6):
[1805985.267438] BTRFS info (device dm-6): allowing degraded mounts
[1805985.267566] BTRFS info (device dm-6): disk space caching is enabled
[1805985.267676] BTRFS info (device dm-6): has skinny extents
[1805987.187857] BTRFS warning (device dm-6): missing devices (1)
exceeds the limit (0),
> [ ... ] Meanwhile, the problem as I understand it is that at
> the first raid1 degraded writable mount, no single-mode chunks
> exist, but without the second device, they are created. [
> ... ]
That does not make any sense, unless there is a fundamental
mistake in the design of the 'raid1'
On 2017-03-02 12:26, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
02.03.2017 16:41, Duncan пишет:
Chris Murphy posted on Wed, 01 Mar 2017 17:30:37 -0700 as excerpted:
[1717713.408675] BTRFS warning (device dm-8): missing devices (1)
exceeds the limit (0), writeable mount is not allowed
[1717713.446453] BTRFS
02.03.2017 16:41, Duncan пишет:
> Chris Murphy posted on Wed, 01 Mar 2017 17:30:37 -0700 as excerpted:
>
>> [1717713.408675] BTRFS warning (device dm-8): missing devices (1)
>> exceeds the limit (0), writeable mount is not allowed
>> [1717713.446453] BTRFS error (device dm-8): open_ctree failed
Chris Murphy posted on Wed, 01 Mar 2017 17:30:37 -0700 as excerpted:
> [1717713.408675] BTRFS warning (device dm-8): missing devices (1)
> exceeds the limit (0), writeable mount is not allowed
> [1717713.446453] BTRFS error (device dm-8): open_ctree failed
>
> [chris@f25s ~]$ uname
> -r
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:30:37PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> [1717713.408675] BTRFS warning (device dm-8): missing devices (1)
> exceeds the limit (0), writeable mount is not allowed
> [1717713.446453] BTRFS error (device dm-8): open_ctree failed
>
> [chris@f25s ~]$ uname -r
>
[1717713.408675] BTRFS warning (device dm-8): missing devices (1)
exceeds the limit (0), writeable mount is not allowed
[1717713.446453] BTRFS error (device dm-8): open_ctree failed
[chris@f25s ~]$ uname -r
4.9.8-200.fc25.x86_64
I thought this was fixed. I'm still getting a one time degraded rw
24 matches
Mail list logo