|
|
@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ There is no need to do so. See the previous questions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing special needs to be done. Remove the branch from mergerfs' |
|
|
|
config and copy (rsync) the data from the removed filesystem into the |
|
|
|
pool. The same as if it were you transfering data from one filesystem |
|
|
|
pool. The same as if it were you transferring data from one filesystem |
|
|
|
to another. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you wish to continue using the pool with all data available while |
|
|
@ -57,19 +57,28 @@ good practice to run rsync or rclone again after the first copy |
|
|
|
finishes to ensure nothing is left behind. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE: Above recommends to "copy" rather than "move" because you want |
|
|
|
to ensure that your data is transfered before wiping the drive or |
|
|
|
to ensure that your data is transferred before wiping the drive or |
|
|
|
filesystem. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Can filesystems still be used directly? Outside of mergerfs while pooled? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, out-of-band interaction is generally fine. Remember that mergerfs |
|
|
|
is just a userland application like any other software so its |
|
|
|
interactions with the underlying filesystems is no different. It would |
|
|
|
be like two normal applications interacting with the |
|
|
|
filesystem. However, it's not recommended to write to the same file |
|
|
|
from within the pool and from without at the same time. Especially if |
|
|
|
using page caching (`cache.files!=off`) or writeback caching |
|
|
|
(`cache.writeback=true`). That said this risk is really not |
|
|
|
really different from the risk of two applications writing to |
|
|
|
the same file under normal conditions. |
|
|
|
Yes, [out-of-band](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-band) |
|
|
|
interaction is generally fine. Remember that mergerfs is a userland |
|
|
|
application so any interaction with the underlying filesystem is the |
|
|
|
same as multiple normal applications interacting. However, it is not |
|
|
|
recommended to write to the same file from within the pool and from |
|
|
|
without at the same time. Especially if using page caching |
|
|
|
(`cache.files!=off`) or writeback caching |
|
|
|
(`cache.writeback=true`). That said this risk is really not different |
|
|
|
from the risk of two applications writing to the same file under |
|
|
|
normal conditions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keep in mind that if out-of-band changes are made while also |
|
|
|
leveraging any caching of the filesystem layout such as with |
|
|
|
`cache.entry`, `cache.negative_entry`, `cache.attr`, `cache.symlinks`, |
|
|
|
or `cache.readdir` you may experience temporary inconsistency till the |
|
|
|
cache expires. mergerfs is not actively watching all branches for |
|
|
|
changes and the kernel will have no way to know anything changed so as |
|
|
|
to clear or ignore the cache. This is the same issue you can have with |
|
|
|
[remote filesystems](../remote_filesystems.md). |