| 1 |
Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 23:16:48 +0100, lee wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> > I would run btrfs on bare partitions and use btrfs's raid1 |
| 6 |
>> > capabilities. You're almost certainly going to get better |
| 7 |
>> > performance, and you get more data integrity features. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> That would require me to set up software raid with mdadm as well, for |
| 10 |
>> the swap partition. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> There's no need to use RAID for swap, it's not like it contains anything |
| 13 |
> of permanent importance. Create a swap partition on each disk and let |
| 14 |
> the kernel use the space as it wants. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
When a disk fails a swap partition is on, the system is likely to go |
| 17 |
down. Raid is not a replacement for backups. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
>> The relevant advantage of btrfs is being able to make snapshots. Is |
| 20 |
>> that worth all the (potential) trouble? Snapshots are worthless when |
| 21 |
>> the file system destroys them with the rest of the data. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> You forgot the data checksumming. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Not at all, I'm seeing it as an advantage, especially when you want to |
| 26 |
store large amounts of data. Since I don't trust btrfs with that, I'm |
| 27 |
using ZFS. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
A system partition of 50 or 60GB --- of which about 10GB are used --- is |
| 30 |
not exactly storing large amounts of data, and the data on it doesn't |
| 31 |
change much. In this application, checksums would still be a benefit, |
| 32 |
yet a rather small one. So as I said, the /relevant/ advantage of btrfs |
| 33 |
is being able to make snapshots. And that isn't worth the trouble. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> If you use hardware RAID then btrfs |
| 36 |
> only sees a single disk. It can still warn you of corrupt data but it |
| 37 |
> cannot fix it because it only has the one copy. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
or it corrupts the data itself ;) |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
>> Well, then they need to make special provisions for swap files in btrfs |
| 42 |
>> so that we can finally get rid of the swap partitions. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> I think there are more important priorities, its not like having a swap |
| 45 |
> partition or two is a hardship or limitation. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Still needing swap partitions and removing the option to use swap files |
| 48 |
instead simply defeats the purpose of btrfs and makes it significantly |
| 49 |
harder to use. |
Archives