News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A straight talk about btrfs by lightedman on Thursday August 24, 2017 @08:10AM (#15089388)
"As I've explained elsewhere, that "irreversible read-only mode" is well documented and completely avoidable"

And yet it hasn't been fixed despite being well-known? That tells me to stay away from it more than anything else.

"even if you do trigger it a one-line kernel patch will bypass the overzealous safety check"

I shouldn't need to hackjob my kernel to make a single individual lone drive work. If you can't work with a single hard drive, you have no business trying to work with multiple hard drives.

Re:A straight talk about btrfs by wtallis on Thursday August 24, 2017 @10:06AM (#15090199)
> I shouldn't need to hackjob my kernel to make a single individual lone drive work.

You don't. You only need the hack if you do a bad job of cleaning up after the loss of the other half of your two-drive mirror. ZFS won't let you transition in-place from RAID to non-RAID at all. Btrfs just requires that you not reboot in the middle of that migration.

Re:A straight talk about btrfs by sliken on Thursday August 24, 2017 @02:18PM (#15092597)
Seems insane, after all not all reboots are voluntary.
Re:A straight talk about btrfs by wtallis on Thursday August 24, 2017 @06:21PM (#15094568)
"Insane" is pretty strong for a temporary limitation that is just as severe with traditional RAID arrays. A sudden power failure or any other hardware problem cropping up during an array rebuild is a nightmare scenario.
Re:A straight talk about btrfs by cyphar on Thursday August 24, 2017 @11:40PM (#15095938)
It should be noted that md-raid does handle that scenario. I agree with you that the characterisation of this present limitation in btrfs is quite unfair, but not all RAID systems are susceptible to that problem.