Re: BTRFS raid 5/6 status

I've looked into snap-raid and it seems well suited to my needs as most of the data is static. I'm planning on using it in conjunction with mhddfs so all drives are seen as a single storage pool. Is there then any benefit in using Btrfs as the underlying filesystem on each of the drives? -- To

Re: BTRFS raid 5/6 status

audio muze writes: > It seems to me that the simplest option at present is probably to use > each disk separately, formatted btrfs, and backed up to other drives. > The data to be stored on these drives is largely static - video and > audio library. In that case this might

Re: BTRFS raid 5/6 status

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 07:39:20AM +0200, audio muze wrote: > Thanks Chris > > I should've browsed recent threads, my apologies. Terribly > frustrating though that the issues you refer to aren't documented in > the btrfs wiki. Reading the wiki one is lead to believe that the only > real issue

BTRFS raid 5/6 status

Hi I've 6 x 3TB SATA drives available with a view to consolidating long term storage to a single raid array intended to be operational more or less 24/7. I've done this a few times too many and run into the inevitable issues like waiting days to expand raid arrays whilst running the risk of disk

Re: BTRFS raid 5/6 status

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:11 PM, audio muze wrote: > Rebuilds and/or expanding the array should be pretty quick given only > actual data blocks are written on rebuild or expansion as opposed to > traditional raid systems that write out the entire array. While that might be

Re: BTRFS raid 5/6 status

See the other recent thread on the list "RAID6 stable enough for production?" A lot of your questions have already been answered in recent previous threads. While there are advantages to Btrfs raid56, there are some missing parts that make it incomplete and possibly unworkable for certain use

Re: BTRFS raid 5/6 status

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 06:11:49 +0200 audio muze wrote: > Before I go down this road I'd appreciate thoughts/ suggestions/ > alternatives? Have I left anything out? Most importantly is btrfs > raid6 now stable enough to use in this fashion? I would suggest going with Btrfs

Re: BTRFS raid 5/6 status

Thanks Chris I should've browsed recent threads, my apologies. Terribly frustrating though that the issues you refer to aren't documented in the btrfs wiki. Reading the wiki one is lead to believe that the only real issue is the write hole that can occur as a result of a power loss. There I

Re: BTRFS raid 5/6 status

Thanks Roman, but I don't have the appetite to use mdadm and have the array take forever to build or get yet another set of risks to ultimately migrate from mdadm to btrfs when raid6 is stable. It seems to me that the simplest option at present is probably to use each disk separately, formatted