Re: Any use for mkfs.btrfs -d raid5 -m raid1 ?

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

 



On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 03:44:35PM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> If I lose 2 drives on a raid5, -m raid1 should ensure I haven't lost my
> metadate.
> From there, would I indeed have small files that would be stored entirely on
> some of the drives that didn't go missing, and therefore I could recover
> some data with 2 missing drives?

   btrfs's RAID-1 is two copies only, so you may well have lost some
of your metadata. n-copies RAID-1 is coming Real Soon Now™ (Chris has
it on his todo list, along with fixing all the parity RAID stuff).

> Or is it kind of pointless/waste of space?
> 
> Actually, would it make btrfs faster for metadata work since it can read
> from n drives in parallel and get data just a bit faster, or is that mostly
> negligeable?

   I don't think we've got good benchmarks from anyone on any of this
kind of thing.

   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
     --- Great oxymorons of the world, no. 9: Standard Deviation ---     

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


[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