Re: [PATCH 0/5] [RFC] RAID-level terminology change

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Hugo Mills <hugo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>    Oh, sorry. It's "reduced redundancy", aka DUP -- i.e. you get that
> number of copies, but not guarantee that the copies all live on
> different devices. I'm not devoted to showing it this way. Other
> suggestions for making this distinction are welcomed. :)
>
>
>    Hugo.
>
> --
> === Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
>   PGP key: 65E74AC0 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk
>        --- There's many a slip 'twixt wicket-keeper and gully. ---

I've noticed through my own tests that on a single device I can
corrupt around 5% of the data completely before btrfs fails. Up to
that point both filesystem as well as data integrity stays at 100%.
However the default layout for one disk seems to be having the data
once, the metadata DUP and the system DUP too. Having these 5% isn't
mentioned anywhere... Is this a value that could maybe be manipulated
and could it be introduced into a naming scheme like this? Also where
do the 5% redundancy come from?
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux