On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 04:10:44PM +0200, Henti Smith wrote: > Hugo Mills wrote at some point: > > I'm confused. How would you expect to recover a file on a broken > > RAID-0 when half (or 1/3, or whatever) of the data in it has gone away > > for good? The file is lost and gone forever. If you care somewhat > > about your data, use RAID-1, or -10 (or -5 or -6 when they arrive in > > btrfs[1]). If you really care about your data, keep off-machine and > > off-site backups -- RAID is not a backup. > > That's just it, I don't care about my data that is lost when a drive > fails, I care about loosing all the data when only one drive fails. > Hence I'm trying to find out if there is a way to have fault tolerant > drive pooling. > After some more reading linear mode seems to offer the best options if > you can only discard the files in the FS that islost when a drive is > lost, but I'm still looking more into this. > > At it's core I'm looking for a way to do something similar windows > drive extender that allows you to pool your drives without loosing all > your data when one drive is lost. Aaaah, OK. Things become clearer. mkfs.btrfs -d single -m raid1 is probably what you want, then. Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- Quantum Mechanics: the dreams stuff is made of. ---
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
