On 25/6/2014 5:41 μμ, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
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)
For the same device there is also erasure coding, where you lose lets
say 10% capacity, and have the benefit of recovering from the most
probable disk errors that dont take the whole disk with them, bad sectors.
- 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.
--
Konstantinos Skarlatos
--
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
