On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 12:04 AM Tom Seewald <tseew...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm not sure where it is in the priority list. > > > > If you're doing a preemptive replace, there's no degraded state. Even > > if there's a crash during this replace, all devices are present, so > > it'll boot normally. The difficulty is if a drive has died, and > > there's a reboot before a replace has started. > > The main problem is that drive failures can occur when a system crashes, like > a sudden power loss. In such a case all other raid 1 arrays would be able to > boot normally and continue to be available with one failed drive. Given this > honestly bizarre behavior of btrfs in the face of drive failure, I don't > think its raid implementation can be considered production ready yet.
I am not discounting the validity of your use case, or your requirement. I'm just explaining how it works and why there's this limitation. And folks do use it in production nevertheless, so they are accepting this weakness in favor of other strengths. It's not a right or wrong, it's a question of having to make choices, and picking your consequences. Sometimes that's hard. It would be nice if this were easy and we could just say categorically across the board Btrfs is better for all use cases so just use that. :D > I understand that raid setups are not the common case, but if it is an option > in the installer I think it should at least come with a warning. It is an option in custom partitioning for 8 years. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
