On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 06:36:51PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > On Tuesday, 6 March 2018 6:29:11 PM AEDT Craig Sanders via luv-main wrote: > > With btrfs or ZFS it's easy to add additional drives for more space later. > > With ZFS you only add them one RAID set at a time and after adding that RAID > set can't be changed. You can't just add a disk at a time as you do with > BTRFS.
If you're using mirrored pairs, that's no problem - you'll always be adding or upgrading a pair of drives at a time. e.g. to go from RAID-1 with a single mirrored pair to RAID-10 with two mirrored pairs. or to add a third or fourth or fifth ... mirrored pair of drives. btrfs has greater flexibility in that it allows you to combine any combination of differently sized drives, and it's easy to rebalance your data across the new configuration. > Last time I checked BTRFS RAID-5 and RAID-6 wasn't reliable IMHO. Still isn't. And I have my doubts about whether its raid-1 or raid-10 modes are entirely reliable either...i'm still seeing occasional reports of catastrophic data loss with btrfs that can't easily be dismissed as user error. RE: CDDL vs GPL > I don't think it's legally dubious. Oracle know exactly what they are > doing, if Oracle thought it was bad they would have let them know. "dubious" was the wrong word. "prohibited" is accurate. It's only "legally dubious" because, as you say, it's very unlikely that Oracle or anyone else with standing would sue. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/ craig -- craig sanders <c...@taz.net.au> _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-main