From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com ([209.85.212.169]:33753 "EHLO mail-wi0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752682AbbHMWcr (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:32:47 -0400 Received: by wijp15 with SMTP id p15so1299486wij.0 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:32:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55CC830D.2070304@gmail.com> References: <20150812130758.GA26529@rus.uni-stuttgart.de> <55CC830D.2070304@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 08:32:46 +1000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: RAID0 wrong (raw) device? From: Gareth Pye To: Austin S Hemmelgarn Cc: Ulli Horlacher , linux-btrfs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > 3. See the warnings about doing block level copies and LVM snapshots of > BTRFS volumes, the same applies to using it on DRBD currently as well (with > the possible exception of remote DRBD nodes (ie, ones without a local copy > of the backing store) (in this case, we need to blacklist backing devices > for stacked storage (I think the same issue may be present with BTRFS on a > MD based RAID1 set). I've been using BTRFS on top of DRBD for several years now, what specifically am I meant to avoid? I have 6 drives mirrored across a local network, this is done with DRBD. At any one time only a single server has the 6 drives mounted with btrfs. Is this a ticking time bomb? -- Gareth Pye - blog.cerberos.id.au Level 2 MTG Judge, Melbourne, Australia "Dear God, I would like to file a bug report"