Re: Btrfs partition gets remounted as read only

[Hugo Mills <hugo@carfax.org.uk>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2282 bytes --]

(Adding OP back to cc list -- I know from IRC they're not subscribed
to the list)

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 03:02:23PM +0000, Duncan wrote:
> Incorporeal Waffle posted on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:30:21 +0000 as excerpted:
> 
> > I tried converting my root partition (originally ext4) to btrfs.
> 
> There's some known bugs with btrfs-convert currently, with current or 
> very recent discussion on-list about how to fix it, if you check the 
> archives.
> 
> In the more general case, while the present bugs will no doubt be fixed, 
> I (a user, not a dev) don't recommend using convert, as in the best case, 
> it's a compromise, with better results if you treat the existing ext* as 
> a backup and start with a brand new btrfs using mkfs.btrfs.
> 
> The admin's rule of backups states that if you care about the data, it's 
> backed up, and if it's not backed up, in practice, you're defining the 
> data as not worth the time and resources to back up, any claims to the 
> contrary not withstanding.  (Meanwhile, a would-be backup that hasn't 
> been tested restorable isn't considered a backup, because the backup 
> isn't defined as complete until it is tested.)
> 
> From that perspective, there's little reason to do a filesystem 
> conversion, since if you care about the data, it's backed up and can be 
> restored to a brand new filesystem, with a better layout than a 
> filesystem that started as something else is likely to ever achieve, and 
> if you don't care about the data, then there's no reason not to start out 
> with a clean filesystem in the first place.
> 
> So while having a convert tool is "nice", even when it's working 
> correctly, the best choice is to avoid using it, starting with brand new 
> clean filesystem and copying existing data, if any, into it from backups 
> so it is laid out ideally for the new filesystem, instead of the 
> compromise of trying to work around the location of existing data and 
> metadata, in a layout that should work, granted (and it's definitely a 
> bug that it's not doing so today), but is unlikely to be ideal for a 
> different filesystem than the one it started out as.
> 

-- 
Hugo Mills             | vi vi vi: the Editor of the Beast.
hugo@... carfax.org.uk |
http://carfax.org.uk/  |
PGP: E2AB1DE4          |

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]