3 ms·
"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-k
by 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 agoSeems 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 agoIt 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.