Re: Missing half of available space (resend)

[David Hampton <mailinglists@dhampton.net>]

This is a Mythbuntu system, and the latest they support is 14.04. 

Thanks for all the responses.

David

On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 06:56 +1100, Gareth Pye wrote:
> I wouldn't blame Ubuntu too much, 14.10 went out of support months ago
> (which counts as a long time when it's only for people happy to
> upgrade every 6 months).
> 
> The kernel ppa's builds tend to run fine on the latest LTS & regular
> releases, although they can cause issues (I've had some fun with
> nvidia drivers at times). That ppa will get you to 4.3 or 4.4rc4.
> 
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 10:28 AM, David Hampton
> > <mailinglists@dhampton.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2015-12-09 at 16:48 +0000, Duncan wrote:
> >>> David Hampton posted on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 01:30:09 -0500 as excerpted:
> >>>
> >>> > Seems I need to upgrade my tools.  That command was added in 3.18 and I
> >>> > only have the 3.12 tools.
> >>>
> >>> Definitely so, especially because you're running raid6, which wasn't
> >>> stable until 4.1 for both kernel and userspace.  3.12?  I guess it did
> >>> have the very basic raid56 support, but it's definitely nothing I'd
> >>> trust, at that old not for btrfs in general, but FOR SURE not raid56.
> >>
> >> I've upgraded to the 4.2.0 kernel and the 4.0 btrfs-tools package.
> >
> > I think btrfs-progs 4.0 has a mkfs bug in it (or was that 4.0.1?)
> > Anyway, even that is still old in Btrfs terms. I think Ubuntu needs to
> > do better than this, or just acknowledge Btrfs is not supported, don't
> > include btrfs-progs at all by default, and stop making it an install
> > time option.
> >
> >
> >> These are the latest that Ubuntu has packaged for 15.10, and I've pulled
> >> them into my 14.10 based release.  Is this recent enough, or do I need
> >> to try the 4.3 kernel/tools build from the active development tree (that
> >> will eventually become 16.04)?
> >
> > It's probably fine day to day, but if you ever were to need btrfs
> > check or repair, you'd want the current version no matter what. There
> > are just too many bug fixes and enhancements happening to not make
> > that effort. You kinda have to understand that you're effectively
> > testing Btrfs by using raid56. It is stabilizing, but it can hardly be
> > called stable or even feature complete seeing as there are all sorts
> > of missing failure notifications.
> >
> > More than anything else you need to be willing to lose everything on
> > this volume, without further notice, i.e. you need a backup strategy
> > that you're prepared to use without undue stress. If you can't do
> > that, you need to look at another arrangement. Both LVM and mdadm
> > raid6 + XFS are more stable.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Chris Murphy
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> 
>