On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Zygo Blaxell
<ce3g8...@umail.furryterror.org> wrote:

> Degraded RAID5 is not RAID0.  RAID5 has strict constraints that RAID0
> does not.  The way a RAID5 implementation behaves in degraded mode is
> the thing that usually matters after a disk fails.

Is there degraded raid5 xfstesting happening? Or are the tests mainly
done non-degraded? In particular, 2x device fail degraded raid6,
because it's so expensive, has potential to expose even more bugs.

> So...metadata blocks would be 256K on the 5-disk RAID5 example above,
> and any file smaller than 256K would be stored inline?  Ouch.  That would
> also imply the compressed extent size limit (currently 128K) has to become
> much larger.

There are patches to set strip size. Does it make sense to specify
4KiB strip size for metadata block groups and 64+KiB for data block

Chris Murphy
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

Reply via email to