From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.216.44]:62109 "EHLO mail-qa0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751492AbaBLRQj (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:16:39 -0500 Received: by mail-qa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id w5so14169707qac.17 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:16:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20140209224055.3175e70f@system> <191C3349-9491-44B6-8289-C5B1EDF1F59E@colorremedies.com> <20140211041527.57ef96c4@system> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:16:38 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: BTRFS with RAID1 cannot boot when removing drive From: Saint Germain To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11 February 2014 21:35, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote: > Saint Germain posted on Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:04:57 +0100 as excerpted: > >> The big problem I currently have is that based on your input, I hesitate >> a lot on my partitioning scheme: should I use a dedicated /boot >> partition or should I have one global BTRFS partition ? >> It is not very clear in the doc (a lof of people used a dedicated /boot >> because at that time, grub couldn't natively boot BTRFS it seems, but it >> has changed). >> Could you recommend a partitioning scheme for a simple RAID1 with 2 >> identical hard drives (just for home computing, not business). > > FWIW... I'm planning to and have your previous message covering that > still marked unread to reply to later. But "real life" has temporarily > been monopolizing my time so the last day or two I've only done > relatively short and quick replies. That one will require a bit more > time to answer to my satisfaction. > > So I'm punting for the moment. But FWIW I tend to be a reasonably heavy > partitioner (tho nowhere near what I used to be), so a lot of folks will > consider my setup somewhat extreme. That's OK. It's my computer, setup > for my purposes, not their computer for theirs, and it works very well > for me, so it's all good. =:^) > > But hopefully I'll get back to that with a longer reply by the end of the > week. If I don't, you can probably consider that monopoly lasting longer > than I thought, and it could be that I'll never get back to properly > reply. But it's an interesting enough topic to me that I'll /probably/ > get back, just not right ATM. > No problem, I have started another thread where we discuss partitioning. It may be slightly off-topic, but the intention is really to have a partition BTRFS-friendly. For instance it seems that a dedicated /boot partition instead of a subvolume is not necessary (better to have the /boot in the RAID1). However I'm no expert. Thanks for your help.