From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hubert Kario Subject: Re: Interpreting Output of "btrfs fi show" Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:03:58 +0200 Message-ID: <1530119.sl3296EQTA@bursa01> References: <8118972.tgkAvno4mK@bursa22> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-ID: On Sunday 29 of April 2012 04:15:24 Duncan wrote: > > Still, a "zero-superblock" option would be useful for the btrfs too= l. > > I'll see what I can do about this. >=20 > Yes, indeed. Particularly since various bits of btrfs functionality=20 > depend on scanning for filesystems (presumably their superblocks), an= d=20 > output like that in the OP can be confusing indeed, as well as=20 > potentially dangerous in recovery situations, where the wrong one mig= ht=20 > be activated by accident. (FWIW, there's an mdadm --zero-superblock=20 > option. I should take note of this thread and be sure I use it when = next=20 > I redo my layouts, probably when I switch some of them to btrfs inste= ad,=20 > tho that's going to be a bit as I'm waiting for N-way-mirroring, aka=20 > proper raid1 mode, not the 2-way-only-mirroring that btrfs calls raid= 1=20 > mode currently.) mdadm --zero-superblock removes MD superblock, it doesn't modify the da= ta part=20 of the partition, it just zeroes the MD metadata. Regards, --=20 Hubert Kario QBS - Quality Business Software 02-656 Warszawa, ul. Ksawer=F3w 30/85 tel. +48 (22) 646-61-51, 646-74-24 www.qbs.com.pl -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" = in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html