-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 12/31/2014 12:27 PM, ashford@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > I see this as a CRITICAL design flaw. The reason for calling it > CRITICAL is that System Administrators have been trained for >20 > years that RAID-10 can usually handle a dual-disk failure, but the > BTRFS implementation has effectively ZERO chance of doing so. Sure, but you never *count* on that second failure since it is a ( relatively even ) probability game. > In order to remove this potentially catestrophic confusion, BTRFS > should either call their "RAID-10" implementation something else, > or they should adhere to the long-established definition of > RAID-10. Personally I'd prefer it follow the way mdadm does it, which is much better than what the rest of the industry calls raid-10, which is to say, simply a naive raid-0 on top of raid-1. I'm very happy with my 3 disk offset layout raid-10 which gets the sequential read throughput of a 3 disk raid-0, while still being able to handle a single drive failure. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUpIkQAAoJENRVrw2cjl5R/wAIAKNU0NfEFGXLQK0lB1kZMJQt WrBjKih8xG2WIYAqYCHoNTWJtmCZOCHtltt+OsUb8Pa8u075ALtEQBRNminLLuqV LjREOyOzvzaDfNSEhptdBZ4YazqFt6UChWtu7RWhMtb7u61pmqMJatDhxLe+2CF9 YQE3qgLfP+PAMIGO/xN5m+hYba4hbF/MoqQ/XN7Z1VWvT9FNR7Dn8frflpmI2Cyh iAravNS78hUjbxTtNz1qVXLosDVsjyZpz9UY9occNJ/vlF/GMd5q2c8xXkDTczGB O9B55OXGzfmzPZzlNJ2MyBLgwQx/huPH8RiyuuIdy3AVubc/pXuAZQqaydf/lQg= =qwW+ -----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
