On 19/08/14 12:21 PM, M G Berberich wrote:
we are thinking about using BtrFS on standard hardware for a
fileserver with about 50T (100T raw) of storage (25×4TByte).
...
· Are there any reports/papers/web-pages about BtrFS-systems this size
in use? Praises, complains, performance-reviews,
we are thinking about using BtrFS on standard hardware for a
fileserver with about 50T (100T raw) of storage (25×4TByte).
I would recommend carefully reading this thread titled: 1 week to
rebuid 4x 3TB raid10 is a long time!
So I have a 2 x 2.6 TB devices in btrfs RAID-1, 716G used. Linux
As a counter-argument, I use BTRFS on a filesystem with about 280TB raw right now as a
fileserver. Note that this is mostly transient data (raid 0), and I have stuck with 3.14,
hearing the horror stories of 3.15/3.16 locking up.
Even at that size (29TB LUNs), I have been able to add and
On 08/19/2014 05:38 PM, Andrej Manduch wrote:
Hi,
On 08/19/2014 06:21 PM, M G Berberich wrote: · Are there any
reports/papers/web-pages about BtrFS-systems this size
in use? Praises, complains, performance-reviews, whatever…
I don't know about papers or benchmarks but few weeks ago
Hello,
we are thinking about using BtrFS on standard hardware for a
fileserver with about 50T (100T raw) of storage (25×4TByte).
This is what I understood so far. Is this right?
· incremental send/receive works.
· There is no support for hotspares (spare disks that automatically
replaces
· Besides using bcache, are there any possibilities to boost
performance by adding (dedicated) cache-SSDs to a BtrFS?
dm-cache is in the mainline kernel and lvm2 recently added support to
make devicemapper configuration automatic. In my opinion, dm-cache is
a little easier to use because you
On 2014-08-19 12:21, M G Berberich wrote:
Hello,
we are thinking about using BtrFS on standard hardware for a
fileserver with about 50T (100T raw) of storage (25×4TByte).
This is what I understood so far. Is this right?
· incremental send/receive works.
· There is no support for
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:21 AM, M G Berberich
bt...@oss.m-berberich.de wrote:
Hello,
we are thinking about using BtrFS on standard hardware for a
fileserver with about 50T (100T raw) of storage (25×4TByte).
I would recommend carefully reading this thread titled: 1 week to
rebuid 4x 3TB
Hi,
On 08/19/2014 06:21 PM, M G Berberich wrote: · Are there any
reports/papers/web-pages about BtrFS-systems this size
in use? Praises, complains, performance-reviews, whatever…
I don't know about papers or benchmarks but few weeks ago there was a
guy who has problem with really long
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:21:52 +0200
M G Berberich bt...@oss.m-berberich.de wrote:
· BtrFS with RAID1 is fairly stable.
Maybe, but it's not optimized for performance: reads are not balanced in the
most optimal way, and writes may end up being submitted sequentially rather
than in parallel to two
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 06:21:52PM +0200, M G Berberich wrote:
· incremental send/receive works.
Yes.
· There is no support for hotspares (spare disks that automatically
replaces faulty disk).
Correct
· BtrFS with RAID1 is fairly stable.
From what I know.
· RAID 5/6 spreads all data
11 matches
Mail list logo
