YES!!! Sorry to beat a dead horse, but it has been so frustrating for me. I thought I did something wrong, like, how could the partition break for doing nothing! Where did I fucked up? I cannot imagine the experience with a RAIDed BTRFS array shudders
Sure... HDDs shouldn't do that, but it's literally the job of a BTRFS raid to protect me from such issues. The data was all still intact on the other drive. I could see it with dd, but BTRFS refused to read it.
[1]: https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/634050/in-what-ways...
In theory perhaps, but absolutely not in practice. Making things atomic is tricky.
However, btrfs is a very fragile filesystem and any inconsistencies caused by the drive bugs tend to lead to it breaking and refusing to mount, whereas on other filesystems you'll just get a warning in dmesg.
It doesn't help that btrfs developers refuse to work around drive bugs.
The entire selling point of the filesystem is that it's resilient to data corruption. Drive bugs are just another class of data corruption.
I know you don't want to get asked this, and I wouldn't if you'd just said "I tried this once a while ago and it happened", but if it's consistent... have you filed a bug?
It's occurred to me, but I expect a fair bit of push back; 'you abuse the array and expect it to what?'
I'm not really interested in debating that - I know expecting coherency in this situation is a little silly, but BTRFS is notably less reliable
Avoiding a situation that may or may not occur, by not participating. Not saying it's a good thing, but it's easier for me to just use What Works
I'd be kind of annoyed if I went to the trouble of reporting a bug and got that response. But I'd also not assume it would end that way...
The DRAM caches are pretty hefty compared to metadata, so I wouldn't be surprised - though that's about my extent of understanding.
Even then, though - other filesystems are certainly more durable, dealing with whatever these drives are doing.
FWIW, this was with four Sabrent Rocket 4.0 Plus drives in RAID10 with 4K sectors. I'm not sure if these are particularly well known one way or another for deception/trickery
They hold up just fine with either dm-raid or native LVM raid10 under more traditional filesystems (I tested EXT4/XFS, using the latter consistently)
It doesn't even get much better with many drives and avoiding the docs/tooling
BTRFS arrays will consistently corrupt with my reset button -- RAID10 on gen4 NVMe drives... while LVM/dm-raid + traditional file systems are absolutely fine