On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Zygo Blaxell <ce3g8...@umail.furryterror.org> wrote:
> Degraded RAID5 is not RAID0. RAID5 has strict constraints that RAID0 > does not. The way a RAID5 implementation behaves in degraded mode is > the thing that usually matters after a disk fails. Is there degraded raid5 xfstesting happening? Or are the tests mainly done non-degraded? In particular, 2x device fail degraded raid6, because it's so expensive, has potential to expose even more bugs. > So...metadata blocks would be 256K on the 5-disk RAID5 example above, > and any file smaller than 256K would be stored inline? Ouch. That would > also imply the compressed extent size limit (currently 128K) has to become > much larger. There are patches to set strip size. Does it make sense to specify 4KiB strip size for metadata block groups and 64+KiB for data block groups? -- 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
