Re: Any hope of pool recovery?

[Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1170 bytes --]

On 2015-07-03 13:51, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Donald Pearson
> <donaldwhpearson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I did some more digging and found that I had a lot of errors basically
>> every drive.
>
> Ick. Sucks for you but then makes this less of a Btrfs problem because
> it can really only do so much if more than the number of spares have
> problems. It does suggest a more aggressive need for the volume to go
> read only in such cases though, before it gets this corrupt.
I'd almost say this is something that should be configurable.  The 
default should probably be if there have been errors on at least as many 
drives as there are spares, the fs should go read-only; but still 
provide the option to choose between that, going read-only immediately 
on the first error or only going read-only on write errors.
> Multiple disk problems like this though suggest a shared hardware
> problem like a controller or expander.
>
I have to agree with this statement, I've seen stuff like this before 
(altho0ugh thankfully not on BTRFS), and 100% of the time the root cause 
was either the storage controller of system RAM.


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 2967 bytes --]