Re: btrfs raid1 and btrfs raid10 arrays NOT REDUNDANT

Jim Salter
2014-01-04T21:22:54Z

On 01/04/2014 01:10 AM, Duncan wrote:
> The example given in the OP was of a 4-device raid10, already the
> minimum number to work undegraded, with one device dropped out, to
> below the minimum required number to mount undegraded, so of /course/
> it wouldn't mount without that option.

The issue was not realizing that a degraded fault-tolerant array would
refuse to mount without being passed an -o degraded option. Yes, it's on
the wiki - but it's on the wiki under *replacing* a device, not in the
FAQ, not in the head of the "multiple devices" section, etc; and no
coherent message is thrown either on the console or in the kernel log
when you do attempt to mount a degraded array without the correct argument.

IMO that's a bug. =)