| 1 |
On Monday, November 27, 2017 11:30:13 PM CET Bill Kenworthy wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi all, |
| 3 |
> I need to expand two bcache fronted 4xdisk btrfs raid 10's - this |
| 4 |
> requires purchasing 4 drives (and one system does not have room for two |
| 5 |
> more drives) so I am trying to see if using raid 5 is an option |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I have been trying to find if btrfs raid 5/6 is stable enough to use but |
| 8 |
> while there is mention of improvements in kernel 4.12, and fixes for the |
| 9 |
> write hole problem I cant see any reports that its "working fine now" |
| 10 |
> though there is a phoronix article saying Oracle is using it since the |
| 11 |
> fixes. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Is anyone here successfully using btrfs raid 5/6? What is the status of |
| 14 |
> scrub and self healing? The btrfs wiki is woefully out of date :( |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> BillK |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I have not seen any indication that BTRFS raid 5/6/.. is usable. |
| 19 |
Last status I heard: No scrub, no rebuild when disk failed, ... |
| 20 |
It should work as long as all disks stay functioning, but then I wonder why |
| 21 |
bother with anything more advanced than raid-0 ? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
It's the lack of progress with regards to proper "raid" support in BTRFS which |
| 24 |
made me stop considering it and simply went with ZFS. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Joost |
Archives