From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ig0-f182.google.com ([209.85.213.182]:35895 "EHLO mail-ig0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932638AbcA1McW (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jan 2016 07:32:22 -0500 Received: by mail-ig0-f182.google.com with SMTP id z14so11802415igp.1 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 04:32:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: RAID1 disk upgrade method To: Sean Greenslade , Btrfs BTRFS References: <20160122034538.GA25196@coach.student.rit.edu> <20160123214127.GA601@fox.wireless.rit.edu> <20160127224549.GA4891@fox.rh.rit.edu> <20160127235528.GA5498@fox.rh.rit.edu> From: "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" Message-ID: <56AA0A0A.1060807@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 07:31:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160127235528.GA5498@fox.rh.rit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2016-01-27 18:55, Sean Greenslade wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 05:45:49PM -0500, Sean Greenslade wrote: >> OK, disks have arrived, and I've completed the first replace. >> Interestingly enough, the replace seems to have succeeded, however btrfs >> fi show doesn't seem to think so. >> >> Dmesg: >> [Wed Jan 27 13:03:09 2016] BTRFS info (device sdb1): disk space caching >> is enabled >> [Wed Jan 27 13:03:09 2016] BTRFS: has skinny extents >> [Wed Jan 27 13:03:09 2016] BTRFS: bdev /dev/sdb1 errs: wr 0, rd 186, >> flush 0, corrupt 0, gen 0 >> [Wed Jan 27 13:05:23 2016] sdc: sdc1 >> [Wed Jan 27 13:05:25 2016] sdc: sdc1 >> [Wed Jan 27 13:08:37 2016] BTRFS: dev_replace from /dev/sdb1 (devid 2) >> to /dev/sdc1 started >> [Wed Jan 27 16:34:49 2016] BTRFS: dev_replace from /dev/sdb1 (devid 2) >> to /dev/sdc1 finished >> >> Btrfs fi show: >> warning, device 3 is missing >> warning, device 3 is missing >> warning devid 3 not found already >> Label: none uuid: 490b8b7c-59c4-45dc-ac63-6a90f0966776 >> Total devices 2 FS bytes used 1.45TiB >> devid 1 size 1.82TiB used 1.52TiB path /dev/sda1 >> *** Some devices missing >> >> I haven't rebooted or remounted yet, so I'm curious if this is a bug, >> a normal thing that is fixed by a reboot, or what. > > Got the opportunity to reboot, and things appear to be OK. Still, I > would expect replace to work without requiring a reboot, so this may > still be a bug. I'm running a scrub to verify things, and once that > completes I'll do the second replace and see if I encounter the same > problem. That is unusual, it's supposed to work without needing a reboot or rescan, so I think you may have found a bug.