I would not use Raid56 in production. I've tried using it a few different ways but have run in to trouble with stability and performance. Raid10 has been working excellently for me. On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Sjoerd <sjoerd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi all, > > Is RAID6 still considered unstable so I shouldn't use it in production? > The latest I could find about a test scenario is more than a year ago > (http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-03-23_Btrfs-Raid5-Status.html) > > I want to build a new NAS (6 disks of 4TB) on RAID6 and prefer to use btrfs > over zfs, but the latter is proven stable and I am unsure about btrfs... > Main usage for me would be to able to replace 1 or 2 failing (or going to > fail) drives and be able to extend it in the future with more disks. The data > on it shouldn't get corrupted unless the building were it's in is destroyed ;) > > So should I go for btrfs? > > NB: I am running happily a RAID5 btrfs with 4x2TB disks in it, but you'll just > know the value of the filesystem when something goes wrong. Yes I know RAID5/6 > is not a backup ;) > > Cheers, > Sjoerd > > -- > 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 -- 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
