On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 08:32:46AM +1000, Gareth Pye wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn > <ahferroin7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 3. See the warnings about doing block level copies and LVM snapshots of > > BTRFS volumes, the same applies to using it on DRBD currently as well (with > > the possible exception of remote DRBD nodes (ie, ones without a local copy > > of the backing store) (in this case, we need to blacklist backing devices > > for stacked storage (I think the same issue may be present with BTRFS on a > > MD based RAID1 set). > > > I've been using BTRFS on top of DRBD for several years now, what > specifically am I meant to avoid? > > I have 6 drives mirrored across a local network, this is done with DRBD. > At any one time only a single server has the 6 drives mounted with btrfs. > Is this a ticking time bomb? There are two things which are potentially worrisome here: - Having the same filesystem mounted on more than one machine at a time (which you're not doing). - Having one or more of the DRBD backing store devices present on the same machine that the DRBD filesystem is mounted on (which you may be doing). Of these, the first is definitely going to be dangerous. The second may or may not be, depending on how well DRBD copes with direct writes to its backing store, and how lucky you are about the kernel identifying the right devices to use for the FS. Hugo. -- Hugo Mills | "Big data" doesn't just mean increasing the font hugo@... carfax.org.uk | size. http://carfax.org.uk/ | PGP: E2AB1DE4 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
