From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f41.google.com ([209.85.218.41]:34717 "EHLO mail-oi0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750757AbcGEXFs (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:05:48 -0400 Received: by mail-oi0-f41.google.com with SMTP id s66so249774753oif.1 for ; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 16:05:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <70f12c1b-8d30-c5f7-faa8-10a86a49c332@crc.id.au> References: <576CB0DA.6030409@gmail.com> <20160624085014.GH3325@carfax.org.uk> <576D6C0A.7070502@gmail.com> <20160627215726.GG14667@hungrycats.org> <7bad0370-ac01-2280-d8b1-e31b0ae9cffe@crc.id.au> <154fc0b3-8c39-eff6-48c9-5d2667e967b1@gmail.com> <31207cfc-245f-1b6e-4ef9-b8bf04b65e70@crc.id.au> <70f12c1b-8d30-c5f7-faa8-10a86a49c332@crc.id.au> From: Chris Murphy Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 17:05:44 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Adventures in btrfs raid5 disk recovery To: Btrfs BTRFS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Related: http://www.spinics.net/lists/raid/msg52880.html Looks like there is some traction to figuring out what to do about this, whether it's a udev rule or something that happens in the kernel itself. Pretty much the only hardware setup unaffected by this are those with enterprise or NAS drives. Every configuration of a consumer drive, single, linear/concat, and all software (mdadm, lvm, Btrfs) RAID Levels are adversely affected by this. I suspect, but haven't tested, that ZFS On Linux would be equally affected, unless they're completely reimplementing their own block layer (?) So there are quite a few parties now negatively impacted by the current default behavior. Chris Murphy