try this article "Linux Don't Need No Stinkin' ZFS: BTRFS Intro & Benchmarks" http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7308/3/ , there is a benchmark table and speed analysis (very informative), but all the benchmarks are done with same -m and -d mkfs.btrfs option mail ignored wrote: > Hi, > > Just getting started with btrfs. > > I understand that btrfs stores data/metadata in two different tree > structures – one for file/directory names, and one for data blocks. > > Reading @, > > http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Using_Btrfs_with_Multiple_Devices > Use raid10 for both data and metadata > mkfs.btrfs -m raid10 -d raid10 /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd /dev/sde > > and @, > > "Churning Butter(FS): An Interview with Chris Mason" > http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7329 > > CM Today you can do this: > mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid10 /dev/sda /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd > And you’ll get metadata on raid1 and data on raid10. The raid10 will > use all four drives and the raid1 will use two drives at a time. Yes, > btrfs allows you to pick different values for data or metadata. > > The fact that I *can* setup data & metadata differently is clear. But > I'm not at all clear *why* I'd want to, or what the advantages are. > I'd guess it's a balance/combination of performance & resiliency. > > Naively "-m raid10 -d raid10" seems to make the most sense -- if i > have it, use it. > > Are there any benchmarks, guidelines or recommendations? > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
