Hello all, I recently checked out btrfs and have started putting it through its paces. I tried a raid10 and then a raid1, as so:
mkfs.btrfs -m raid10 -d raid10 /dev/sda5 /dev/sdb5 /dev/sdc5 /dev/sdd5 and mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid1 /dev/sda5 /dev/sdb5 /dev/sdc5 /dev/sdd5 In both cases after mounting /dev/sda5 /mnt, df -h reported 4 * partition size. Is df lying, or is replication not happening right now? I also noticed that when I copied a file on to /mnt, I had to sync before the available file size was affected. Also, I did not read or write much, but only the first two disks /dev/sda5 and /dev/sdb5 had their access lights going while I was using -m raid1 and -d raid1. Is there any case where the third and fourth disks would be used with -m raid1 -d raid1? I've been writing Copy-On-Write software for a while now and believe strongly that it is "the right way" to do almost all data operations. There are manifest benefits in the filesystem domain for users, and am glad to see such an amazingly slick & easy to use competitor appear on the scene. I look forward to btrfs becoming disk format stable so I can more wholeheartedly embrace it. I spent quite a few hours late last night playing with Linux raid10 and ext4; setting stride and stripe sizes. Tonight I briefly toyed with btrfs and found it to be a far more pleasurable experience, and I got considerably higher performance metrics (using simple bonnie++ pleasurements). My CPU usage is considerably higher, but I find that I dont mind that knowing there is real consistency checking ongoing. Thank you all for this great effort. rektide -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
