On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 08:47 +0100, Hugo Mills wrote: > This has variously been possible and not over the last few years. I > think it's finally come down on the side of "not", I think that would really be a loss... :(
> The question is, why? Well imagine you have some computer which can only have one disk drive (laptop, etc.) and you still want at least some kind of redundancy against bit rot errors. IMO, btrfs should support most flavours out there... - n-way duplicates on the same device (and not just DUP with n=2) - n-way mirrors on multiple devices (i.e. what we have right now with RAID1 plus up to classic RAID1 with copies on each device - RAID5/6 - n-way striped+parity with n>2 - "stacked" layouts (RAID 10 as e.g. MD has it,... RAID50, 60) And terminology should really be re-worked... IMHO it's very bad to use the term RAID1, if it's not what classic RAID1 does. Cheers, Chris.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
