On Jan 21, 2014, at 10:18 AM, Jim Salter <j...@jrs-s.net> wrote: > Would it be reasonably accurate to say "btrfs' RAID5 implementation is likely > working well enough and safe enough if you are backing up regularly and are > willing and able to restore from backup if necessary if a device failure goes > horribly wrong", then?
It's for testing purposes. If you really want to commit a production machine for testing a file system, and you're prepared to lose 100% of changes since the last backup, OK do that. > If the worst thing wrong with RAID5/6 in current btrfs is "might not deal as > well as you'd like with a really nasty example of single-drive failure", that > would likely be livable for me. It was just one hypothetical scenario, it's not the only one. If it's really truly seriously being tested, eventually you'll break it. Chris Murphy-- 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
