so am I to read that as if btrfs redundancy isn't really functional? if i yank a member of my raid 1 out in live "prod" is it going to take a dump on my data? On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Hugo Mills <hugo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 01:00:05PM -0600, sys.syphus wrote: >> oh, and sorry to bump myself. but is raid10 *ever* more redundant in >> btrfs-speak than raid1? I currently use raid1 but i know in mdadm >> speak raid10 means you can lose 2 drives assuming they aren't the >> "wrong ones", is it safe to say with btrfs / raid 10 you can only lose >> one no matter what? > > I think that with an even number of identical-sized devices, you > get the same "guarantees" (well, behaviour) as you would with > traditional RAID-10. > > I may be wrong about that -- do test before relying on it. The FS > probably won't like losing two devices, though, even if the remaining > data is actually enough to reconstruct the FS. > > Hugo. > > -- > Hugo Mills | I can resist everything except temptation > hugo@... carfax.org.uk | > http://carfax.org.uk/ | > PGP: 65E74AC0 | -- 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
