On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 13:08:30 -0600, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote : > >> > Ok I will follow your advice and start over with a fresh BTRFS > >> > volume. As explained on another email, rsync doesn't support > >> > reflink, so do you think it is worth trying with BTRFS send > >> > instead ? Is it safe to copy this way or rsync is more reliable > >> > in case of faulty BTRFS volume ? > >> > > >> If you have the space, btrfs restore would probably be the best > >> option. It's not likely, but using send has a risk of contaminating > >> the new filesystem as well. > >> > > > > I have to copy through the network (I am running out of disks...) so > > btrfs restore is unfortunately not an option. > > I didn't know that btrfs send could contaminate the target disk as > > well ? > > Ok rsync it is then. > > restore will let you extract files despite csum errors. I don't think > send will, and using cp or rsync Btrfs definitely won't hand over the > file. > That's Ok I'd prefer to avoid copying files with csum errors anyway (I can restore them from backups). However will btrfs send abort the whole operation as soon as it finds a csum error ? And will I have the risk to "contaminate" the target BTRFS volume by using BTRFS send ? Thanks ! -- 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
