On Sun, Jan 3, 2021, 6:26 AM Richard Shaw <hobbes1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris, > > Thanks for the detailed explanation. Too much to quote for my follow up > question :) > > So for 3 drives and my desire to have more capacity and redundancy (for > drive failure) would I be better off with RAID1 or RAID5 w/ btrfs? > Depends on what you mean by better. :D In terms of survivability of your data? You're better off with more independent copies/backups than you are with any kind of raid. Raid improves availability, i.e. instead of 0% working it has a degraded mode where it's mostly working, but will require specific actions to make it healthy again, before it also becomes 0% working. Would RAID1 still allow for any single drive failure? > Yes. Same for raid10. > I don't really need the faster IO RAID5 might provide. > Striped parity raids perform well for sequential workloads. They're not good for metadata heavy workloads. Btrfs alters this calculation because metadata (the fs itself) can have a different profile than data. i.e. the recommendation is to use raid1 metadata when using raid5 data; and raid1c3 metadata when using raid6 data. By the way that does introduce quite an odd duck. You can have raid1 metadata, and single data. I'll let that hang out to dry until someone wants to start a thread about that thing :D Funny enough it's now the default mkfs for multiple device Btrfs arrays, first in Fedora. And it also behaves the way pretty much everyone who knows *nothing* about file systems and concat raid arrays expects it should behave. -- Chris Murphy
_______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
