Chris Murphy posted on Thu, 09 Jun 2016 11:39:23 -0600 as excerpted: > Yeah but somewhere there's a chunk that's likely affected by two losses, > with a probability much higher than for conventional raid10 where such a > loss is very binary: if the loss is a mirrored pair, the whole array and > filesystem implodes; if the loss does not affect an entire mirrored > pair, the whole array survives. > > The thing with Btrfs raid 10 is you can't really tell in advance to what > degree you have loss. It's not a binary condition, it has a gray area > where a lot of data can still be retrieved, but the instant you hit > missing data it's a loss, and if you hit missing metadata then the fs > will either go read only or crash, it just can't continue. So that > "walking on egg shells" behavior in a 2+ drive loss is really different > from a conventional raid10 where it's either gonna completely work or > completely fail.
Yes, thanks, CMurphy. That's exactly what I was trying to explain. =:^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- 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
