I am working on a script that i can run daily that will do maintenance
on my btrfs mountpoints. is there any reason not to concurrently do
all of the above? possibly including discards as well.
also, is there anything existing currently that will do maintenance on
btrfs so i don't have to
I would like to avoid running out of space. is there a way to know
that I am getting close? i'd like to make a script that runs as part
of my bash prompt and lets me know when i am getting close. i know
there are several ways you can run out of space and I'd like to avoid
all of them.
--
To
why would there be unknown data below? i have 2 btrfs arrays and
both have this going on. neither are active. any idea why and how to
make it go away?
Btrfs v3.12
btrfs fi df /media/btrfs
Data, RAID1: total=314.00GiB, used=313.55GiB
System, RAID1: total=32.00MiB, used=64.00KiB
Metadata, RAID1:
specifically (P)arity. very specifically n+2. when will raid5 raid6
be at least as safe to run as raid1 currently is? I don't like the
idea of being 2 bad drives away from total catastrophe.
(and yes i backup, it just wouldn't be fun to go down that route.)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
oh, and sorry to bump myself. but is raid10 *ever* more redundant in
btrfs-speak than raid1? I currently use raid1 but i know in mdadm
speak raid10 means you can lose 2 drives assuming they aren't the
wrong ones, is it safe to say with btrfs / raid 10 you can only lose
one no matter what?
--
To
so am I to read that as if btrfs redundancy isn't really functional?
if i yank a member of my raid 1 out in live prod is it going to take
a dump on my data?
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 01:00:05PM -0600, sys.syphus wrote:
oh
But btrfs raid56 mode should be complete with kernel 3.19 and presumably
btrfs-progs 3.19 tho I'd give it a kernel or two to mature to be sure.
N-way-mirroring (my particular hotly awaited feature) is next up, but
given the time raid56 took, I don't think anybody's predicting when it'll
be
Which is really not bad, considering the chance that something gets corrupt.
Already it is an exceedingly rare event. Detection without correction can be
more than enough. Since always things have worked in the computer science
field without even the detection feature.
Most likely even your
, sys.syphus wrote:
I start it. I check it and its like 2% done
Several hours its stopped and the re-balance clearly didn't finish
because I can see one member of the array has a fraction of the usage
of the others. Dmesg shows no errors.
Thoughts? should start it again in the foreground with verbosity
I start it. I check it and its like 2% done
Several hours its stopped and the re-balance clearly didn't finish
because I can see one member of the array has a fraction of the usage
of the others. Dmesg shows no errors.
Thoughts? should start it again in the foreground with verbosity or
something?
10 matches
Mail list logo
