From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A1EC138806 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2017 15:59:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EE7A7E0BF4; Fri, 1 Dec 2017 15:59:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gw1.antarean.org (gw1.antarean.org [194.145.200.214]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B27E0BE2 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2017 15:59:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw1.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A94121379 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2017 16:20:12 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at antarean.org Received: from gw1.antarean.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (gw1.antarean.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DcpxxJd9ShFy for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2017 16:20:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from mailstore1.antarean.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw1.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DF64207AF for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2017 16:20:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from eve.localnet (eve.adm.antarean.org [10.55.16.44]) by mailstore1.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B10E32 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2017 16:59:07 +0100 (CET) From: "J. Roeleveld" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6 Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 16:59:07 +0100 Message-ID: <1770364.9rtrQ9LI28@eve> Organization: Antarean In-Reply-To: References: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Archives-Salt: dcb463d7-242d-4e56-bf6a-180d2eca90a8 X-Archives-Hash: 88520e26080cbf7521e9364f3669cbe5 On Monday, November 27, 2017 11:30:13 PM CET Bill Kenworthy wrote: > Hi all, > I need to expand two bcache fronted 4xdisk btrfs raid 10's - this > requires purchasing 4 drives (and one system does not have room for two > more drives) so I am trying to see if using raid 5 is an option > > I have been trying to find if btrfs raid 5/6 is stable enough to use but > while there is mention of improvements in kernel 4.12, and fixes for the > write hole problem I cant see any reports that its "working fine now" > though there is a phoronix article saying Oracle is using it since the > fixes. > > Is anyone here successfully using btrfs raid 5/6? What is the status of > scrub and self healing? The btrfs wiki is woefully out of date :( > > BillK I have not seen any indication that BTRFS raid 5/6/.. is usable. Last status I heard: No scrub, no rebuild when disk failed, ... It should work as long as all disks stay functioning, but then I wonder why bother with anything more advanced than raid-0 ? It's the lack of progress with regards to proper "raid" support in BTRFS which made me stop considering it and simply went with ZFS. -- Joost