Am 30/11/16 um 17:48 schrieb Austin S. Hemmelgarn: > On 2016-11-30 10:49, Wilson Meier wrote: >> Am 30/11/16 um 15:37 schrieb Austin S. Hemmelgarn: >> >> Transferring this to car analogy, just to make it a bit more funny: >> The airbag (raid level whatever) itself is ok but the micro controller >> (general btrfs) which has the responsibility to inflate the airbag is >> suffers some problems, sometimes doesn't inflate and the manufacturer >> doesn't mention about that fact. >> From your point of you the airbag is ok. From my point of view -> Don't >> buy that car!!! >> Don't you mean that the fact that the live safer suffers problems should >> be noted and every dependent component should point to that fact? >> I think it should. >> I'm not talking about performance issues, i'm talking about data loss. >> Now the next one can throw in "Backups, always make backups!". >> Sure, but backup is backup and raid is raid. Both have their own >> concerns. > A better analogy for a car would be something along the lines of the > radio working fine but the general wiring having issues that cause all > the electronics in the car to stop working under certain > circumstances. In that case, the radio itself is absolutely OK, but it > suffers from issues caused directly by poor design elsewhere in the > vehicle. Ahm, no. You cannot exchange a security mechanism (raid) with a comfort one (compression) and treat them as the same in terms of importance. It makes a serious difference to have a not properly working airbag or not being able to listen to music while your a driving against a wall. Anyway, we should stop this here. >>>> I'm not angry or something like that :) . >>>> I just would like to have the possibility to read such information >>>> about >>>> the storage i put my personal data (> 3 TB) on its official wiki. > There are more places than the wiki to look for info about BTRFS (and > this is the case about almost any piece of software, not just BTRFS, > very few things have one central source for everything). I don't mean > to sound unsympathetic, but given what you're saying, it's sounding > more and more like you didn't look at anything beyond the wiki and > should have checked other sources as well. This is your assumption.
Am 01/12/16 um 07:47 schrieb Duncan: > Austin S. Hemmelgarn posted on Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:48:57 -0500 as > excerpted: >> On 2016-11-30 10:49, Wilson Meier wrote: >>> Do you also have all home users in mind, which go to vacation (sometime >>>> 3 weeks) and don't have a 24/7 support team to replace monitored disks >>> which do report SMART errors? >> Better than 90% of people I know either shut down their systems when >> they're going to be away for a long period of time, or like me have >> ways to log in remotely and tell the FS to not use that disk anymore. > https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Getting_started ... ... has > two warnings offset in red right in the first section: * If you have > btrfs filesystems, run the latest kernel. I do. Ok not the very latest but i'm always on the latest major version. Right now i have 4.8.4 and the very latest is 4.8.11. > * You should keep and test backups of your data, and be prepared to use > them. I have daily backups. > As to the three weeks vacation thing... And "daily use" != "three > weeks without physical access to something you're going to actually be > relying on for parts of those three weeks". > Maybe i have my own mailserver and owncloud to server files to my family? Maybe i'm out of country and somewhere i have no internet access? I will not comment this any further as it leads us nowhere. In general i think that this discussion is taking a complete wrong direction. The only thing i have asked for is to document the *known* problems/flaws/limitations of all raid profiles and link to them from the stability matrix. Regarding raid10: Even if one knows about the fact that btrfs handles things on chunk level one would assume that the code is written in a way to put the copies on different stripes. Otherwise raid10 ***can*** become pretty useless in terms of data redundancy and 2 x raid1 with an lvm should be considered as a replacement. This is a serious thing and should be documented. If this is documented somewhere then please point me to it as i cannot find a word about that anywhere. Cheers, Wilson -- 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
