Chris Murphy wrote on 2015/07/28 21:14 -0600:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:16 PM, james harvey <jamespharvey20@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Doing some fast-paced benchmarking of lots of raid levels, some in a
kvm, some via RDMA access over InfiniBand using different procotols,
etc.
Was shocked to see horrible raid0 performance in one of the tests.
Looked back through the logs and found:
(Note that I typo'ed -d raid**e**0
=====
$ sudo mkfs.btrfs -f -m raid0 -d raide0 /dev/vda2 /dev/vdb1 /dev/vdc1
Unknown profile raide0
For raid0, at least going to single is a lower risk of data loss. But
what if the user specified raid1 but instead single and hence higher
risk of data loss? Probably better to fail the command than ignore -d
switch and continue.
Yes, patch already sent.
It seems to be small typo, as the author expects the last return 0 won't
be reached, but maybe just forgot the exit(1) at the error routine.
Thanks,
Qu
--
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
