Re: btrfs replace seems to corrupt the file system

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



B.H.

On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Mordechay Kaganer <mkaganer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>> Then (if it's OK, hopefully) we'll see how to redo the replace. Maybe,
>> unmount and do a simple "dd" will be the best option? At least it's
>> not going to corrupt the original data :-).
>
> Use of dd can cause corruption of the original.
>

But doing a block-level copy and taking care that the original volume
is hidden from the kernel while mounting the new one is safe, isn't
it?

Anyway, what is the "strait forward" and recommended way of replacing
the underlying device on a single-device btrfs not using any raid
features? I can see 3 options:

1. btrfs replace - as far as i understand, it's primarily intended for
replacing the member disks under btrfs's raid.

2, Add a new volume, then remove the old one. Maybe this way we'll
need to do a full balance after that?

3. Block-level copy of the partition, then hide the original from the
kernel to avoid confusion because of the same UUID. Of course, this
way the volume is going to be off-line until the copy is finished.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux