9 ms·

In that same page however, they also define "mostly OK" as: > mostly OK: safe for general use, there are some known problems This would seem to suggest they ar

by colde 9y ago

In that same page however, they also define "mostly OK" as: > mostly OK: safe for general use, there are some known problems This would seem to suggest they are saying it is okay for production use. Otherwise, what do they mean by "safe for general use"

danparsonson 9y ago
Call me conservative but "Can get stuck in irreversible read-only mode if only one device is present" doesn't equate to "okay for production use" when I'm considering deploying a filesystem; likewise "device replace" being "mostly OK".
- wtallis 9y ago
  As I've explained elsewhere, that "irreversible read-only mode" is well documented and completely avoidable, and even if you do trigger it a one-line kernel patch will bypass the overzealous safety check and allow you to complete the recovery process. If you're actually using something in production, you should probably RTFM so you can avoid shooting yourself in the foot.
  - lightedman 9y ago
    "As I've explained elsewhere, that "irreversible read-only mode" is well documented and completely avoidable" And yet it hasn't been fixed despite being well-known? That tells me to stay away from it more than anything else. "even if you do trigger it a one-line kernel patch will bypass the overzealous safety check" I shouldn't need to hackjob my kernel to make a single individual lone drive work. If you can't work with a single hard drive, you have no business trying to work with multiple hard drives.
    - wtallis 9y ago
      > I shouldn't need to hackjob my kernel to make a single individual lone drive work. You don't. You only need the hack if you do a bad job of cleaning up after the loss of the other half of your two-drive mirror. ZFS won't let you transition in-place from RAID to non-RAID at all. Btrfs just requires that you not reboot in the middle of that migration.
      - sliken 9y ago
        Seems insane, after all not all reboots are voluntary.
        wtallis 9y ago
        "Insane" is pretty strong for a temporary limitation that is just as severe with traditional RAID arrays. A sudden power failure or any other hardware problem cropping up during an array rebuild is a nightmare scenario.
        cyphar 9y ago
        It should be noted that md-raid does handle that scenario. I agree with you that the characterisation of this present limitation in btrfs is quite unfair, but not all RAID systems are susceptible to that problem.

by colde 9y ago

danparsonson 9y ago

Call me conservative but "Can get stuck in irreversible read-only mode if only one device is present" doesn't equate to "okay for production use" when I'm considering deploying a filesystem; likewise "device replace" being "mostly OK".

wtallis 9y ago
As I've explained elsewhere, that "irreversible read-only mode" is well documented and completely avoidable, and even if you do trigger it a one-line kernel patch will bypass the overzealous safety check and allow you to complete the recovery process. If you're actually using something in production, you should probably RTFM so you can avoid shooting yourself in the foot.
- lightedman 9y ago
  "As I've explained elsewhere, that "irreversible read-only mode" is well documented and completely avoidable" And yet it hasn't been fixed despite being well-known? That tells me to stay away from it more than anything else. "even if you do trigger it a one-line kernel patch will bypass the overzealous safety check" I shouldn't need to hackjob my kernel to make a single individual lone drive work. If you can't work with a single hard drive, you have no business trying to work with multiple hard drives.
  - wtallis 9y ago
    > I shouldn't need to hackjob my kernel to make a single individual lone drive work. You don't. You only need the hack if you do a bad job of cleaning up after the loss of the other half of your two-drive mirror. ZFS won't let you transition in-place from RAID to non-RAID at all. Btrfs just requires that you not reboot in the middle of that migration.
    - sliken 9y ago
      Seems insane, after all not all reboots are voluntary.
      - wtallis 9y ago
        "Insane" is pretty strong for a temporary limitation that is just as severe with traditional RAID arrays. A sudden power failure or any other hardware problem cropping up during an array rebuild is a nightmare scenario.
        cyphar 9y ago
        It should be noted that md-raid does handle that scenario. I agree with you that the characterisation of this present limitation in btrfs is quite unfair, but not all RAID systems are susceptible to that problem.