On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 01:00:05PM -0600, sys.syphus wrote: > oh, and sorry to bump myself. but is raid10 *ever* more redundant in > btrfs-speak than raid1? I currently use raid1 but i know in mdadm > speak raid10 means you can lose 2 drives assuming they aren't the > "wrong ones", is it safe to say with btrfs / raid 10 you can only lose > one no matter what?
I think that with an even number of identical-sized devices, you get the same "guarantees" (well, behaviour) as you would with traditional RAID-10. I may be wrong about that -- do test before relying on it. The FS probably won't like losing two devices, though, even if the remaining data is actually enough to reconstruct the FS. Hugo. -- Hugo Mills | I can resist everything except temptation hugo@... carfax.org.uk | http://carfax.org.uk/ | PGP: 65E74AC0 |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
