On 25/03/14 03:29, Marc MERLIN wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 01:11:43AM +, Martin wrote:
There's a big thread a short while ago about using parity across
n-devices where the parity is spread such that you can have 1, 2, and up
to 6 redundant devices. Well beyond just raid5 and raid6:
http:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 01:11:43AM +, Martin wrote:
> Yes, looking good, but for my usage I need the option to run ok with a
> failed drive. So, that's one to keep a development eye on for continued
> progress...
So it does run with a failed drive, it'll just fill the logs with write
errors,
On 24/03/14 21:52, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 07:17:12PM +, Martin wrote:
>> Thanks for the very good summary.
>>
>> So... In very brief summary, btrfs raid5 is very much a work in progress.
>
> If you know how to use it, which I didn't know do now, it's technically very
> us
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 07:17:12PM +, Martin wrote:
> Thanks for the very good summary.
>
> So... In very brief summary, btrfs raid5 is very much a work in progress.
If you know how to use it, which I didn't know do now, it's technically very
usable as is. The corner cases are in having a fai
On 23/03/14 22:56, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> Ok, thanks to the help I got from you, and my own experiments, I've
> written this:
> http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-03-23_Btrfs-Raid5-Status.html
>
> If someone reminds me how to edit the btrfs wiki, I'm happy to copy that
> there, or give an
Ok, thanks to the help I got from you, and my own experiments, I've
written this:
http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-03-23_Btrfs-Raid5-Status.html
If someone reminds me how to edit the btrfs wiki, I'm happy to copy that
there, or give anyone permission to take part of all of what I wrot
