On Jan 21, 2014, at 10:18 AM, Jim Salter <jim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Would it be reasonably accurate to say "btrfs' RAID5 implementation is likely working well enough and safe enough if you are backing up regularly and are willing and able to restore from backup if necessary if a device failure goes horribly wrong", then? It's for testing purposes. If you really want to commit a production machine for testing a file system, and you're prepared to lose 100% of changes since the last backup, OK do that. > If the worst thing wrong with RAID5/6 in current btrfs is "might not deal as well as you'd like with a really nasty example of single-drive failure", that would likely be livable for me. It was just one hypothetical scenario, it's not the only one. If it's really truly seriously being tested, eventually you'll break it. Chris Murphy-- 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
