On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 07:35:02 PM Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:50:12AM +0200, George Duffield wrote:
> > Running a traditional raid5 array of that size is statistically
> > guaranteed to fail in the event of a rebuild.
>
>Except that if it were, you wouldn't see anyone runnin
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 2:52 AM, George Duffield
wrote:
> Funny you should say that, whilst I'd read about it it didn't concern
> me much until Neil Brown himself advised me against expanding the
> raid5 arrays any further (one was built using 3TB drives and the other
> using 4TB drives). My unde
Funny you should say that, whilst I'd read about it it didn't concern
me much until Neil Brown himself advised me against expanding the
raid5 arrays any further (one was built using 3TB drives and the other
using 4TB drives). My understanding is that larger arrays are
typically built using more dr
On 2015-08-28 11:42, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:50:12AM +0200, George Duffield wrote:
Running a traditional raid5 array of that size is statistically
guaranteed to fail in the event of a rebuild.
Except that if it wer
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:50:12AM +0200, George Duffield wrote:
>> Running a traditional raid5 array of that size is statistically
>> guaranteed to fail in the event of a rebuild.
>
>Except that if it were, you wouldn't see anyone running R
On 2015-08-28 05:47, Duncan wrote:
Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:01:58 -0400 as
excerpted:
Someone (IIRC it was Austin H) posted what I thought was an extremely
good setup, a few weeks ago. Create two (or more) mdraid0s, and put
btrfs raid1 (or raid5/6 when it's a bit more
Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:01:58 -0400 as
excerpted:
>> Someone (IIRC it was Austin H) posted what I thought was an extremely
>> good setup, a few weeks ago. Create two (or more) mdraid0s, and put
>> btrfs raid1 (or raid5/6 when it's a bit more mature, I've been
>> recommen
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 10:50:12 +0200
George Duffield wrote:
> Running a traditional raid5 array of that size is statistically
> guaranteed to fail in the event of a rebuild.
Yeah I consider RAID5 to be safe up to about 4 devices. As you already have 5
and looking to expand, I'd recommend going RAI
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:50:12AM +0200, George Duffield wrote:
> Running a traditional raid5 array of that size is statistically
> guaranteed to fail in the event of a rebuild.
Except that if it were, you wouldn't see anyone running RAID-5
arrays of that size and (considerably) larger. And su
Running a traditional raid5 array of that size is statistically
guaranteed to fail in the event of a rebuild. I also need to expand
the size of available storage to accomodate future storage
requirements. My understanding is that a Btrfs array is easily
expanded without the overhead associated with
On 2015-08-26 22:58, Duncan wrote:
Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:03:40 -0400 as
excerpted:
On 2015-08-26 07:50, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:56:03 +0200 George Duffield
wrote:
I'm looking to switch from a 5x3TB mdadm raid5 array to a Btrfs based
solution t
Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:03:40 -0400 as
excerpted:
> On 2015-08-26 07:50, Roman Mamedov wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:56:03 +0200 George Duffield
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm looking to switch from a 5x3TB mdadm raid5 array to a Btrfs based
>>> solution that will involve dupli
On 2015-08-26 07:50, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:56:03 +0200
George Duffield wrote:
I'm looking to switch from a 5x3TB mdadm raid5 array to a Btrfs based
solution that will involve duplicating a data store on a second
machine for backup purposes (the machine is only powered up
George Duffield posted on Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:56:03 +0200 as excerpted:
> Two quick questions:
> - If I were simply to create a Btrfs volume using 5x3TB drives and not
> create a raid5/6/10 array I understand data would be striped across the
> 5 drives with no reduncancy ... i.e. if a drive fails
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:56:03 +0200
George Duffield wrote:
> I'm looking to switch from a 5x3TB mdadm raid5 array to a Btrfs based
> solution that will involve duplicating a data store on a second
> machine for backup purposes (the machine is only powered up for
> backups).
What do you want to ac
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:56:03AM +0200, George Duffield wrote:
> Hi
>
> Is there a more comprehensive discussion/ documentation of Btrfs
> features than is referenced in
> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page...I'd love to learn
> more but it seems there's no readily available autho
On 2015-08-26 04:56, George Duffield wrote:
Hi
Is there a more comprehensive discussion/ documentation of Btrfs
features than is referenced in
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page...I'd love to learn
more but it seems there's no readily available authoritative
documentation out ther
Hi
Is there a more comprehensive discussion/ documentation of Btrfs
features than is referenced in
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page...I'd love to learn
more but it seems there's no readily available authoritative
documentation out there?
I'm looking to switch from a 5x3TB mdadm r
18 matches
Mail list logo
