On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 02:52:43 AM Chris Murphy wrote: > OK I actually don't know what the intended block layer behavior is > when unplugging a device, if it is supposed to vanish, or change state > somehow so that thing that depend on it can know it's "missing" or > what. So the question here is, is this working as intended? If the > layer Btrfs depends on isn't working as intended, then Btrfs is > probably going to do wild and crazy things. And I don't know that the > part of the block layer Btrfs depends on for this is the same (or > different) as what the md driver depends on. I disagree with that statement. BTRFS should be expected to not do wild and crazy things regardless of what happens with block devices. A BTRFS RAID-1/5/6 array should cope with a single disk failing or returning any manner of corrupted data and should not lose data or panic the kernel. A BTRFS RAID-0 or single disk setup should cope with a disk giving errors by mounting read-only or failing all operations on the filesystem. It should not affect any other filesystem or have any significant impact on the system unless it's the root filesystem. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ -- 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
