From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from extserverfr1.prnet.org ([188.165.43.41]:44908 "EHLO extserverfr1.prnet.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753599AbaJMPkg (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:40:36 -0400 Message-ID: <543BF26C.5070905@prnet.org> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 17:40:28 +0200 From: David Arendt MIME-Version: 1.0 To: john terragon CC: Chris Mason , Btrfs BTRFS Subject: Re: btrfs send and kernel 3.17 References: <543450DC.90504@prnet.org> <1412714780.2374.0@mail.thefacebook.com> <543A61EE.7070200@prnet.org> <543AF411.3090408@prnet.org> <543B50F2.2010405@prnet.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/13/2014 02:40 PM, john terragon wrote: > Actually it seems strange that a send operation could corrupt the > source subvolume or fs. Why would the send modify the source subvolume > in any significant way? The only way I can find to reconcile your > observations with mine is that maybe the snapshots get corrupted not > by the send operation by itself but when they are generated with -r > (readonly, as it is needed to send them). Are the corrupted snapshots > you have in machine 2 (the one in which send was never used) readonly? Yes, on both machines there are only readonly snapshots.