-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09/03/13 12:31, Hugo Mills wrote: > Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the > "RAID-n" terminology to change it to an "nCmSpP" format, where n is > the number of copies, m is the number of (data) devices in a stripe per > copy, and p is the number of parity devices in a stripe. I despise both terminologies because they mix up administrator goals with how those goals are provided by the filesystem. Using RAID0 as an example, what is actually desired is maximum performance and there is no need to survive the failure of even a single disk. I don't actually care if it uses striping, parity, hot data tracking, moving things to faster outside edges of spinning disks, hieroglyphics, rot13 encoding, all of the above or anything else. Maximum performance is always desired and "RAID" settings really track to "data must survive the failure of N disks" and/or "data must be accessible if at least N disks are present". As an administrator that is what I would like to set and let the filesystem do whatever is necessary to meet those goals (I'd love to be able to set this on a per directory/file basis too.) Roger -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlE7ttUACgkQmOOfHg372QT9LwCgg8lxpxC/w8E5dTsQ3Qx4ujWh esQAnR2pKmwrJndsvynDia88KsrzJ9m9 =vv3v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- 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
