| 1 |
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 23:16:48 +0100, lee wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > I would run btrfs on bare partitions and use btrfs's raid1 |
| 4 |
> > capabilities. You're almost certainly going to get better |
| 5 |
> > performance, and you get more data integrity features. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> That would require me to set up software raid with mdadm as well, for |
| 8 |
> the swap partition. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
There's no need to use RAID for swap, it's not like it contains anything |
| 11 |
of permanent importance. Create a swap partition on each disk and let |
| 12 |
the kernel use the space as it wants. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> The relevant advantage of btrfs is being able to make snapshots. Is |
| 15 |
> that worth all the (potential) trouble? Snapshots are worthless when |
| 16 |
> the file system destroys them with the rest of the data. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
You forgot the data checksumming. If you use hardware RAID then btrfs |
| 19 |
only sees a single disk. It can still warn you of corrupt data but it |
| 20 |
cannot fix it because it only has the one copy. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Well, then they need to make special provisions for swap files in btrfs |
| 23 |
> so that we can finally get rid of the swap partitions. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I think there are more important priorities, its not like having a swap |
| 26 |
partition or two is a hardship or limitation. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Being politically correct means always having to say you're sorry. |
Archives