On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 08:25:19PM +0000, Duncan wrote: > > Welcome to RAID-0... > > As Hugo implies, RAID-0 mode, not just for btrfs but in general, is well > known among admins for being "garbage data not worth trying to recover" > mode. Not only is there no redundancy, but with raid0 you're > deliberately increasing the chances of loss because now loss of any one > device pretty well makes garbage of the entire array, and loss of any > single device in a group of more than one is more likely than loss of any > single device by itself.
Disks don't quite die once a week, you see. Using raid0 is actually quite rational in a good part of setups. * You need backups _anyway_. No raid level removes this requirement. * You can give a machine twice as much immediate storage with raid0 than with raid1. * You get twice as many disks you can use for backup. Redundant raid is good for two things: * uptime * reducing the chance for loss of data between last backup and the failure For the second point, do you happen to know of a filesystem that gives you cheap hourly backups that avoid taking half an hour just to stat? Thus, you need to make a decision: would you prefer to take time trying to recover, with a good chance of failure anyway -- or a-priori accept that every failure means hitting the backups? Obviously, depends on the use case. This said, I don't have a raid0 anywhere. Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ What Would Jesus Do, MUD/MMORPG edition: ⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ • multiplay with an admin char to benefit your mortal ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ • abuse item cloning bugs (the five fishes + two breads affair) ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ • use glitches to walk on water -- 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
