I had forgotten about this post and on rethinking about it I realized
the kind of brain fart I was having. So thanks for the merciful silence ;-)
On 05/01/16 17:24, Psalle wrote:
Hello all and excuse me if this is a silly question. I looked around
in the wiki and list archives but couldn't find any in-depth
discussion about this:
I just realized that, since raid1 in btrfs is special (meaning only
two copies in different devices), the effect in terms of resilience
achieved with raid1 and raid5 are the same: you can lose one drive and
not lose data.
So!, presuming that raid5 were at the same level of maturity, what
would be the pros/cons of each mode?
As a corollary, I guess that if raid1 is considered a good compromise,
then functional equivalents to raid6 and beyond could simply be
implemented as "storing n copies in different devices", dropping any
complex parity computations and making this mode entirely generic.
Since this seems pretty obvious, I'd welcome your insights on what are
the things I'm missing, since it doesn't exist (and it isn't planned
to be this way, AFAIK). I can foresee consistency difficulties, but
that seems hardly insurmountable if its being done for raid1?
Thanks in advance,
Psalle.
--
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
