Bob Marley posted on Sat, 03 Jan 2015 12:34:41 +0100 as excerpted:
On 29/12/2014 19:56, sys.syphus wrote:
specifically (P)arity. very specifically n+2. when will raid5 raid6
be at least as safe to run as raid1 currently is? I don't like the idea
of being 2 bad drives away from total
On 03/01/2015 14:11, Duncan wrote:
Bob Marley posted on Sat, 03 Jan 2015 12:34:41 +0100 as excerpted:
On 29/12/2014 19:56, sys.syphus wrote:
specifically (P)arity. very specifically n+2. when will raid5 raid6
be at least as safe to run as raid1 currently is? I don't like the idea
of being 2
But btrfs raid56 mode should be complete with kernel 3.19 and presumably
btrfs-progs 3.19 tho I'd give it a kernel or two to mature to be sure.
N-way-mirroring (my particular hotly awaited feature) is next up, but
given the time raid56 took, I don't think anybody's predicting when it'll
be
On 29/12/2014 19:56, sys.syphus wrote:
specifically (P)arity. very specifically n+2. when will raid5 raid6
be at least as safe to run as raid1 currently is? I don't like the
idea of being 2 bad drives away from total catastrophe.
(and yes i backup, it just wouldn't be fun to go down that
Which is really not bad, considering the chance that something gets corrupt.
Already it is an exceedingly rare event. Detection without correction can be
more than enough. Since always things have worked in the computer science
field without even the detection feature.
Most likely even your
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 13:11:57 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
What about using btrfs on top of MD raid?
The problem with that is data integrity. mdraid doesn't have it. btrfs
does.
Most importantly however, you aren't any worse off with Btrfs on top of MD,
than with Btrfs
sys.syphus posted on Sat, 03 Jan 2015 12:55:27 -0600 as excerpted:
But btrfs raid56 mode should be complete with kernel 3.19 and
presumably btrfs-progs 3.19 tho I'd give it a kernel or two to mature
to be sure. N-way-mirroring (my particular hotly awaited feature) is
next up, but given the
Roman Mamedov posted on Sun, 04 Jan 2015 02:58:35 +0500 as excerpted:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 13:11:57 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
What about using btrfs on top of MD raid?
The problem with that is data integrity. mdraid doesn't have it.
btrfs does.
Most importantly
On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 03:22:53AM +, Duncan wrote:
sys.syphus posted on Sat, 03 Jan 2015 12:55:27 -0600 as excerpted:
But btrfs raid56 mode should be complete with kernel 3.19 and
presumably btrfs-progs 3.19 tho I'd give it a kernel or two to mature
to be sure. N-way-mirroring (my
On 2014-12-31 12:27, ashf...@whisperpc.com wrote:
Phillip
I had a similar question a year or two ago (
specifically about raid10 ) so I both experimented and read the code
myself to find out. I was disappointed to find that it won't do
raid10 on 3 disks since the chunk metadata describes
On 2015-01-02 12:45, Brendan Hide wrote:
On 2015/01/02 15:42, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2014-12-31 12:27, ashf...@whisperpc.com wrote:
I see this as a CRITICAL design flaw. The reason for calling it
CRITICAL
is that System Administrators have been trained for 20 years that
RAID-10
can
On 2015/01/02 15:42, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2014-12-31 12:27, ashf...@whisperpc.com wrote:
I see this as a CRITICAL design flaw. The reason for calling it
CRITICAL
is that System Administrators have been trained for 20 years that
RAID-10
can usually handle a dual-disk failure, but the
Roger Binns posted on Thu, 01 Jan 2015 12:12:31 -0800 as excerpted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/31/2014 05:26 PM, Chris Samuel wrote:
I suspect this is a knock-on effect of the fact that (unless this has
changed recently IIRC) RAID-1 with btrfs will only mirrors
Phillip
I had a similar question a year or two ago (
specifically about raid10 ) so I both experimented and read the code
myself to find out. I was disappointed to find that it won't do
raid10 on 3 disks since the chunk metadata describes raid10 as a
stripe layered on top of a mirror.
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 09:27:14 AM ashf...@whisperpc.com wrote:
I see this as a CRITICAL design flaw. The reason for calling it CRITICAL
is that System Administrators have been trained for 20 years that RAID-10
can usually handle a dual-disk failure, but the BTRFS implementation has
effectively
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/29/2014 7:20 PM, ashf...@whisperpc.com wrote:
Just some background data on traditional RAID, and the chances of
survival with a 2-drive failure.
In traditional RAID-10, the chances of surviving a 2-drive failure
is 66% on a 4-drive array,
Phillip Susi wrote:
I'm wondering which of the above the BTRFS implementation most
closely resembles.
Unfortunately, btrfs just uses the naive raid1+0, so no 2 or 3 disk
raid10 arrays, and no higher performing offset layout.
Jose Manuel Perez Bethencourt wrote:
I think you are missing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 12/30/2014 06:17 PM, ashf...@whisperpc.com wrote:
I believe that someone who understands the code in depth (and that
may also be one of the people above) determine exactly how BTRFS
implements RAID-10.
I am such a person. I had a similar
oh, and sorry to bump myself. but is raid10 *ever* more redundant in
btrfs-speak than raid1? I currently use raid1 but i know in mdadm
speak raid10 means you can lose 2 drives assuming they aren't the
wrong ones, is it safe to say with btrfs / raid 10 you can only lose
one no matter what?
--
To
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 01:00:05PM -0600, sys.syphus wrote:
oh, and sorry to bump myself. but is raid10 *ever* more redundant in
btrfs-speak than raid1? I currently use raid1 but i know in mdadm
speak raid10 means you can lose 2 drives assuming they aren't the
wrong ones, is it safe to say
so am I to read that as if btrfs redundancy isn't really functional?
if i yank a member of my raid 1 out in live prod is it going to take
a dump on my data?
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 01:00:05PM -0600, sys.syphus wrote:
oh, and
By asking the question this way, I don't think you understand how
Btrfs development works. But if you check out the git pull for 3.19
you'll see a bunch of patches that pretty much close the feature
parity (no pun intended) gap for raid56 and raid0,1,10. But it is an
rc, and still needs testing,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 12:00 PM, sys.syphus syssyp...@gmail.com wrote:
oh, and sorry to bump myself. but is raid10 *ever* more redundant in
btrfs-speak than raid1? I currently use raid1 but i know in mdadm
speak raid10 means you can lose 2 drives assuming they aren't the
wrong ones, is it
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 02:25:14PM -0600, sys.syphus wrote:
so am I to read that as if btrfs redundancy isn't really functional?
if i yank a member of my raid 1 out in live prod is it going to take
a dump on my data?
Eh? Where did that conclusion some from? I said nothing at all
about
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 12:00 PM, sys.syphus syssyp...@gmail.com wrote:
oh, and sorry to bump myself. but is raid10 *ever* more redundant in
btrfs-speak than raid1? I currently use raid1 but i know in mdadm
speak raid10 means you can lose 2 drives assuming they aren't the
wrong ones, is it
25 matches
Mail list logo
