I personally consider proper RAID6 support with gracious non-intrusive handling of failing drives and a proper warning mechanism the most important missing feature of btrfs, and I know this view is shared by many others with software RAID based storage systems, currently limited by the existing choises on Linux. But having been a (naughty) user of btrfs the last few months I fully understand that there are important bugs, performance fixes and issues in the existing state of btrfs that need more immediate attention as they affect the currently installed base.
I will however stress that the faster the functionality gets implemented the sooner users like myself can begin using it and reporting issues, and hence btrfs gets ready for enterprise usage and general deployment sooner. Regards, Hans-Kristian Bakke Mvh Hans-Kristian Bakke On 3 January 2014 17:45, Dave <d...@thekilempire.com> wrote: > Back in Feb 2013 there was quite a bit of press about the preliminary > raid5/6 implementation in Btrfs. At the time it wasn't useful for > anything other then testing and it's my understanding that this is > still the case. > > I've seen a few git commits and some chatter on this list but it would > appear the developers are largely silent. Parity based raid would be > a powerful addition the the Btrfs feature stack and it's the feature I > most anxiously await. Are there any milestones planned for 2014? > > Keep up the good work... > -- > -=[dave]=- > > Entropy isn't what it used to be. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
