Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:18:23 +, Wols Lists wrote: > > That means every write has to be encrypted 4 times, whereas using > > encryption in the filesystem means it only has to be done once. I > > tried setting encrypted BTRFS this way and there was a significant > > performance hit. I'm

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On 12/12/17 10:15, Neil Bothwick wrote: > That means every write has to be encrypted 4 times, whereas using > encryption in the filesystem means it only has to be done once. I tried > setting encrypted BTRFS this way and there was a significant performance > hit. I'm seriously considering going

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:20:48 +0100, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > My new drives are finally here. One of them turned out to be an OEM. -_- > The shop says it will cover any warranty claims and it’s not a backyard > seller either, so methinks I’ll keep it. > > To evaluate LUKS, I created the

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 09:49:29PM +, Wols Lists wrote: > On 07/12/17 21:37, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > > Ooooh, I just came up with another good reason for raidz over mirror: > > I don't encrypt my drives because it doesn't hold sensitive stuff. (AFAIK > > native ZFS encryption is available

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Wols Lists wrote: > > So the OP needs to be aware that, if his file is smaller than the chunk > size, then it *will* be recoverable from a disk pulled from an array, be > it md-raid or zfs. > > The question is, then, how big is a chunk?

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On 10/12/17 15:07, Rich Freeman wrote: >> > Is that how ZFS works? >> > > I doubt it, hence why I wrote "most parity RAID systems seem to > operate just as you describe." So the OP needs to be aware that, if his file is smaller than the chunk size, then it *will* be recoverable from a disk

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:45 AM, Wols Lists wrote: > On 09/12/17 23:36, Rich Freeman wrote: >> you instead compute 5 sets of parity so that now you have 9 sets of >> data that can tolerate the loss of any 5, then throw away the sets >> containing the original 4 sets of

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On 09/12/17 23:36, Rich Freeman wrote: > you instead compute 5 sets of parity so that now you have 9 sets of > data that can tolerate the loss of any 5, then throw away the sets > containing the original 4 sets of data and store the remaining 5 sets > of parity data across the 5 drives. You can

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Wols Lists wrote: > On 09/12/17 16:58, J. Roeleveld wrote: >> On Friday, December 8, 2017 12:48:45 AM CET Wols Lists wrote: >>> On 07/12/17 22:35, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > (Oh - and md raid-5/6 also mix data and parity, so the same

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On 09/12/17 16:58, J. Roeleveld wrote: > On Friday, December 8, 2017 12:48:45 AM CET Wols Lists wrote: >> On 07/12/17 22:35, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: (Oh - and md raid-5/6 also mix data and parity, so the same holds true > there.) >>> >>> Ok, wasn’t aware of that. I thought I read

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Friday, December 8, 2017 12:48:45 AM CET Wols Lists wrote: > On 07/12/17 22:35, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > >> (Oh - and md raid-5/6 also mix data and parity, so the same holds true > >> > >> > there.) > > > > Ok, wasn’t aware of that. I thought I read in a ZFS article that this were > > a

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On 07/12/17 22:35, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: >> (Oh - and md raid-5/6 also mix data and parity, so the same holds true >> > there.) > Ok, wasn’t aware of that. I thought I read in a ZFS article that this were a > special thing. Say you've got a four-drive raid-6, it'll be something like data1

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 10:26:34AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> […] They want 1GB/TB RAM, which rules out a lot of the cheap ARM-based >> solutions. Maybe you can get by with less, but finding ARM systems with >>

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 09:49:29PM +, Wols Lists wrote: > > So in case I ever need to send in a drive for repair/replacement, noone can > > read from it (or only in tiny bits'n'pieces from a hexdump), because each > > disk contains a mix of data and parity blocks. > > > > I think I'm finally

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On 07/12/17 21:37, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > Ooooh, I just came up with another good reason for raidz over mirror: > I don't encrypt my drives because it doesn't hold sensitive stuff. (AFAIK > native ZFS encryption is available in Oracle ZFS, so it might eventually > come to the Linux world). >

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 07:29:08PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:35:10PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> > >> IMO the cost savings for parity RAID trumps everything unless money > >> just isn't

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On 07/12/17 20:17, Richard Bradfield wrote: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 06:35:16PM +, Wols Lists wrote: >> On 07/12/17 09:52, Richard Bradfield wrote: >>> I did also investigate USB3 external enclosures, they're pretty >>> fast these days. >> >> AARRGGH !!! >> >> If you're using mdadm, DO

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 06:35:16PM +, Wols Lists wrote: On 07/12/17 09:52, Richard Bradfield wrote: I did also investigate USB3 external enclosures, they're pretty fast these days. AARRGGH !!! If you're using mdadm, DO NOT TOUCH USB WITH A BARGE POLE !!! I don't know the details,

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On 07/12/17 14:53, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > When I configured my kernel the other day, I discovered network block > devices as an option. My PC has a hotswap bay[0]. Problem solved. :) Then I > can do zpool replace with the drive-to-be-replaced still in the pool, which > improves resilver read

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On 07/12/17 09:52, Richard Bradfield wrote: > I did also investigate USB3 external enclosures, they're pretty > fast these days. AARRGGH !!! If you're using mdadm, DO NOT TOUCH USB WITH A BARGE POLE !!! I don't know the details, but I gather the problems are very similar to the timeout

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 10:26:34AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > > > > I see. I'm always looking for ways to optimise expenses and cut down on > > environmental footprint by keeping stuff around until it really breaks. In >

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > > I see. I'm always looking for ways to optimise expenses and cut down on > environmental footprint by keeping stuff around until it really breaks. In > order to increase capacity, I would have to replace all four drives,

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 09:52:55AM +, Richard Bradfield wrote: > On Thu, 7 Dec 2017, at 09:28, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > > > I incorporated ZFS' expansion inflexibility into my planned > > > maintenance/servicing budget. > > > > What was the conclusion? That having no more free slots meant

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017, at 09:28, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > > I incorporated ZFS' expansion inflexibility into my planned > > maintenance/servicing budget. > > What was the conclusion? That having no more free slots meant that you > can just as well use the inflexible Raidz, otherwise would have

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 07:54:41AM +, Richard Bradfield wrote: > On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:35:10PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > >On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > >> > >>I don’t really care about performance. It’s a simple media archive powered > >>by

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:35:10PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: I don’t really care about performance. It’s a simple media archive powered by the cheapest Haswell Celeron I could get (with 16 Gigs of ECC RAM though ^^).

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:35:10PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> IMO the cost savings for parity RAID trumps everything unless money >> just isn't a factor. > > Cost saving compared to what? In my four-bay-scenario,

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:35:10PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > > > > I don’t really care about performance. It’s a simple media archive powered > > by the cheapest Haswell Celeron I could get (with 16 Gigs of ECC RAM

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > > I don’t really care about performance. It’s a simple media archive powered > by the cheapest Haswell Celeron I could get (with 16 Gigs of ECC RAM though > ^^). Sorry if I more or less stole the thread, but this is almost

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:14:12PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Wols Lists wrote: > > On 27/11/17 22:30, Bill Kenworthy wrote: > >> […] > >> Is anyone here successfully using btrfs raid 5/6? What is the status of > >> scrub and self

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On 01/12/17 17:14, Rich Freeman wrote: > You could run btrfs over md-raid, but other than the snapshots I think > this loses a lot of the benefit of btrfs in the first place. You are > vulnerable to the write hole, The write hole is now "fixed". In quotes because, although journalling has now

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Wols Lists wrote: > On 27/11/17 22:30, Bill Kenworthy wrote: >> Hi all, >> I need to expand two bcache fronted 4xdisk btrfs raid 10's - this >> requires purchasing 4 drives (and one system does not have room for two >> more drives)

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On 27/11/17 22:30, Bill Kenworthy wrote: > Hi all, > I need to expand two bcache fronted 4xdisk btrfs raid 10's - this > requires purchasing 4 drives (and one system does not have room for two > more drives) so I am trying to see if using raid 5 is an option > > I have been trying to find

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

On Monday, November 27, 2017 11:30:13 PM CET Bill Kenworthy wrote: > Hi all, > I need to expand two bcache fronted 4xdisk btrfs raid 10's - this > requires purchasing 4 drives (and one system does not have room for two > more drives) so I am trying to see if using raid 5 is an option > > I

[gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6

Hi all, I need to expand two bcache fronted 4xdisk btrfs raid 10's - this requires purchasing 4 drives (and one system does not have room for two more drives) so I am trying to see if using raid 5 is an option I have been trying to find if btrfs raid 5/6 is stable enough to use but while