On May 3, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/02/2014 03:21 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> On May 2, 2014, at 2:23 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >>> >>> Something tells me btrfs replace (not device replace, simply >>> replace) should be moved to btrfs device replace… >> >> The syntax for "btrfs device" is different though; replace is like >> balance: btrfs balance start and btrfs replace start. And you can >> also get a status on it. We don't (yet) have options to stop, >> start, resume, which could maybe come in handy for long rebuilds >> and a reboot is required (?) although maybe that just gets handled >> automatically: set it to pause, then unmount, then reboot, then >> mount and resume. >> >>> Well, I'd say two copies if it's only two devices in the raid1... >>> would be true raid1. But if it's say four devices in the raid1, >>> as is certainly possible with btrfs raid1, that if it's not >>> mirrored 4-way across all devices, it's not true raid1, but >>> rather some sort of hybrid raid, raid10 (or raid01) if the >>> devices are so arranged, raid1+linear if arranged that way, or >>> some form that doesn't nicely fall into a well defined raid level >>> categorization. >> >> Well, md raid1 is always n-way. So if you use -n 3 and specify >> three devices, you'll get 3-way mirroring (3 mirrors). But I don't >> know any hardware raid that works this way. They all seem to be >> raid 1 is strictly two devices. At 4 devices it's raid10, and only >> in pairs. >> >> Btrfs raid1 with 3+ devices is unique as far as I can tell. It is >> something like raid1 (2 copies) + linear/concat. But that >> allocation is round robin. I don't read code but based on how a 3 >> disk raid1 volume grows VDI files as it's filled it looks like 1GB >> chunks are copied like this > Actually, MD RAID10 can be configured to work almost the same with an > odd number of disks, except it uses (much) smaller chunks, and it does > more intelligent striping of reads. The efficiency of storage depends on the file system placed on top. Btrfs will allocate space exclusively for metadata, and it's possible much of that space either won't or can't be used. So ext4 or XFS on md probably is more efficient in that regard; but then Btrfs also has compression options so this clouds the efficiency analysis. For striping of reads, there is a note in man 4 md about the layout with respect to raid10: "The 'far' arrangement can give sequential read performance equal to that of a RAID0 array, but at the cost of reduced write performance." The default layout for raid10 is near 2. I think either the read performance is a wash with defaults, and md reads are better while writes are worse with the far layout. I'm not sure how Btrfs performs reads with multiple devices. 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
