> Phillip Susi wrote: > >> I'm wondering which of the above the BTRFS implementation most >> closely resembles. > > Unfortunately, btrfs just uses the naive raid1+0, so no 2 or 3 disk > raid10 arrays, and no higher performing offset layout.
> Jose Manuel Perez Bethencourt wrote: > > I think you are missing crucial info on the layout on disk that BTRFS > implements. While a traditional RAID1 has a rigid layout that has > fixed and easily predictable locations for all data (exactly on two > specific disks), BTRFS allocs chunks as needed on ANY two disks. > Please research into this to understand the problem fully, this is the > key to your question. There is a HUGE difference here. In the first case, the data will have a >50% chance of surviving a 2-drive failure. In the second case, the data will have an effectively 0% chance of surviving a 2-drive failure. I don't believe I need to mention which of the above is more reliable, or which I would prefer. I believe that someone who understands the code in depth (and that may also be one of the people above) determine exactly how BTRFS implements RAID-10. Thank you. Peter Ashford -- 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
