On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:52:11AM -0800, James wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:36 AM, James <torpesco@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I bought one drive to replace the failing one. I'd like to end up with > > RAID1. Back in July I set up a server for my brother and (unless I'm > > forgetting a different path we ended up taking), I thought what I did > > was: > > 1. mkfs.btrfs on a single drive but tell it to use RAID1 > > 2. copy data on > > 3. once the second drive for the RAID1 was available, add it to the > > volume and rebalance (or something) Why not just create the filesystem as RAID-1 in the first place? # mkfs.btrfs -d raid1 -m raid1 /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 Then you can restore from your backups. You do have backups, right? (Remember, this is a filesystem still marked as "experimental"). > I must be mixing memories. Maybe that's what I did to end up with the > volume that turned out to be RAID0 for the data. On a whim, even > thought btrfs filesystem df /path showed no indications of RAID after > adding the second drive, I issued a balance command. I ran 'df' right > away and now see the results I don't want -- RAID0 data, RAID1 > metadata. Ctrl-C doesn't seem to be aborting the balance. Yes, balances are not interruptible right now. The restriper patches (in 3.3-rc1) will allow you to monitor balance progress and stop/restart them. They will also allow you to change RAID levels on the fly, which is what you were asking for in the first place. Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- There's an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to --- talk to us about this new script for Hamlet they've worked out!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
