Re: RAID6 stable enough for production?

2015-10-15 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > For that matter, now that GlusterFS has checksums and snapshots... Interesting - I haven't kept up with that. Does it actually do end-to-end checksums? That is, compute the checksum at the time of storage, store

Re: RAID6 stable enough for production?

2015-10-15 Thread Chris Murphy
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> For that matter, now that GlusterFS has checksums and snapshots... > > Interesting - I haven't kept up with that. Does it

Re: RAID6 stable enough for production?

2015-10-14 Thread Donald Pearson
I would not use Raid56 in production. I've tried using it a few different ways but have run in to trouble with stability and performance. Raid10 has been working excellently for me. On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Sjoerd wrote: > Hi all, > > Is RAID6 still considered

Re: RAID6 stable enough for production?

2015-10-14 Thread Lionel Bouton
Le 14/10/2015 22:23, Donald Pearson a écrit : > I would not use Raid56 in production. I've tried using it a few > different ways but have run in to trouble with stability and > performance. Raid10 has been working excellently for me. Hi, could you elaborate on the stability and performance

RAID6 stable enough for production?

2015-10-14 Thread Sjoerd
Hi all, Is RAID6 still considered unstable so I shouldn't use it in production? The latest I could find about a test scenario is more than a year ago (http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-03-23_Btrfs-Raid5-Status.html) I want to build a new NAS (6 disks of 4TB) on RAID6 and prefer to

Re: RAID6 stable enough for production?

2015-10-14 Thread Lionel Bouton
Le 14/10/2015 22:53, Donald Pearson a écrit : > I've used it from 3.8 something to current, it does not handle drive > failure well at all, which is the point of parity raid. I had a 10disk > Raid6 array on 4.1.1 and a drive failure put the filesystem in an > irrecoverable state. Scrub speeds are

Re: RAID6 stable enough for production?

2015-10-14 Thread Donald Pearson
I've used it from 3.8 something to current, it does not handle drive failure well at all, which is the point of parity raid. I had a 10disk Raid6 array on 4.1.1 and a drive failure put the filesystem in an irrecoverable state. Scrub speeds are also an order of magnitude or more slower in my own

Re: RAID6 stable enough for production?

2015-10-14 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Donald Pearson wrote: > > Personally I would still recommend zfs on illumos in production, > because it's nearly unshakeable and the creative things you can do to > deal with problems are pretty remarkable. The unfortunate reality is >

Re: RAID6 stable enough for production?

2015-10-14 Thread Donald Pearson
btrfs does handle mixed device sizes really well actually. And you're right, zfs is limited to the smallest drive x vdev width. The rest goes unused. You can do things like pre-slice the drives with sparse files and create zfs on those files, but then you'll load up those larger drives with a

Re: RAID6 stable enough for production?

2015-10-14 Thread Chris Murphy
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > This is the main thing that has kept me away from zfs - you can't > modify a vdev, like you can with an md array or btrfs. A possible work around is ZoL (ZFS on Linux) used as a GlusterFS brick. For that matter,

Re: RAID6 stable enough for production?

2015-10-14 Thread Duncan
Sjoerd posted on Wed, 14 Oct 2015 22:19:50 +0200 as excerpted: > Is RAID6 still considered unstable so I shouldn't use it in production? > The latest I could find about a test scenario is more than a year ago > (http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-03-23_Btrfs-Raid5- Status.html) > > I