Hallo, Fajar,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
>>> And you can use three BTRFS filesystems the same way as three Ext4
>>> filesystems if you prefer such a setup if the time spent for
>>> restoring the backup does not make up the cost for one additional
>>> disk for you.
>>
>> But where's the gain? If a disk fails I have a lot of tools for
>> repairing an ext2/3/4 system.
> It won't work if you use it in RAID0 (e.g. with LVM spanning three
> disks, then use ext4 on top of the LV).
But when I use ext2/3/4 I neither need RAID0 nor do I need LVM.
> As others said, if your only concern is "if a disk is dead, I want to
> be able to access data on other disks", then simply use btrfs as
> three different fs, mounted on three directories.
But then I don't need especially btrfs.
> btrfs will shine when:
> - you need checksum and self-healing in raid10 mode
> - you have lots of small files
> - you have highly compressible content
> - you need snapshot/clone feature
For my video collection (mpeg2) nothing fits ...
The only advantage I see with btrfs is
adding a bigger disk
deleting/removing a smaller disk
with really simple commands.
Viele Gruesse!
Helmut
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
