Marc MERLIN posted on Sun, 04 May 2014 22:06:17 -0700 as excerpted:
That's true, but in this case I barely see the point of -m single vs -m
raid0. It sounds like they both stripe data anyway, maybe not at the
same level, but if both are striped, than they're almost the same in my
book :)
Marc MERLIN posted on Sun, 04 May 2014 18:27:19 -0700 as excerpted:
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 09:44:41AM +0200, Brendan Hide wrote:
Ah, I see the man page now This is because SSDs can remap blocks
internally so duplicate blocks could end up in the same erase block
which negates the benefits of
Marc MERLIN posted on Sun, 04 May 2014 18:27:19 -0700 as excerpted:
The original reason why I was asking myself this question and trying to
figure out how much better -m raid1 -d raid0 was over -m raid0 -d raid0
I think the summary is that in the first case, you're going to to be
abel to
Hi, Marc
Raid0 is not redundant in any way. See inline below.
On 2014/05/04 01:27 AM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
So, I was thinking. In the past, I've done this:
mkfs.btrfs -d raid0 -m raid1 -L btrfs_raid0 /dev/mapper/raid0d*
My rationale at the time was that if I lose a drive, I'll still have
full
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 08:57:19AM +0200, Brendan Hide wrote:
Hi, Marc
Raid0 is not redundant in any way. See inline below.
Thanks for clearing things up.
But now I have 2 questions
1) btrfs has two copies of all metadata on even a single drive, correct?
Only when *specifically* using
On 2014/05/04 09:24 AM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 08:57:19AM +0200, Brendan Hide wrote:
Hi, Marc
Raid0 is not redundant in any way. See inline below.
Thanks for clearing things up.
But now I have 2 questions
1) btrfs has two copies of all metadata on even a single drive,
Marc MERLIN posted on Sat, 03 May 2014 16:27:02 -0700 as excerpted:
So, I was thinking. In the past, I've done this:
mkfs.btrfs -d raid0 -m raid1 -L btrfs_raid0 /dev/mapper/raid0d*
My rationale at the time was that if I lose a drive, I'll still have
full metadata for the entire filesystem
On 05/04/2014 12:24 AM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
Gotcha, thanks for confirming, so -m raid1 -d raid0 really only protects
against metadata corruption or a single block loss, but otherwise if you
lost a drive in a 2 drive raid0, you'll have lost more than just half
your files.
The scenario you
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 09:44:41AM +0200, Brendan Hide wrote:
Ah, I see the man page now This is because SSDs can remap blocks
internally so duplicate blocks could end up in the same erase block
which negates the benefits of doing metadata duplication.
You can force dup but, per the man
So, I was thinking. In the past, I've done this:
mkfs.btrfs -d raid0 -m raid1 -L btrfs_raid0 /dev/mapper/raid0d*
My rationale at the time was that if I lose a drive, I'll still have
full metadata for the entire filesystem and only missing files.
If I have raid1 with 2 drives, I should end up with
10 matches
Mail list logo
