From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jim owens Subject: Re: Unable to mount loopback devices in RAID mode Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:09:28 -0500 Message-ID: <4B13C408.10606@hp.com> References: <200911192026.04694.lists-receive@programmierforen.de> <4B05D64B.7070705@hp.com> <200911202022.19306.lists-receive@programmierforen.de> <20091127053336.GD25509@jsoft.dyndns.org> <4B0FF6F9.9010603@hp.com> <20091130042851.GG25509@jsoft.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed To: Andi Drebes , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091130042851.GG25509@jsoft.dyndns.org> List-ID: Jean-S=E9bastien Trottier wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:57:45AM -0500, jim owens wrote: >> Jean-S=E9bastien Trottier wrote: >>> In the case of RAID1 (or even RAID10), what happens if loop0 is the >>> current master but is corrupted/dead and you want to mount loop1 to >>> recover your data? >> The problem does not occur with raid1. In that case, both copies >> are updated and either can mount. For raid10, 2 of the 4 devices >> should always be mountable (you still have to find which 2). >=20 > Hmmm... But Andi's original post shows he was having this problem wit= h > RAID1, no? Ah, yes, I missed the raid1 part on the original post. So I do not understand why it does not work correctly for him to mount either device. Maybe this problem is not what I see in my testing (using 32) with disk partitions instead of loop. With partitions, I only see the mount problem on raid0, not on raid1. jim -- 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