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 AB5DC139083 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 23:35:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5F94AE1033; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 23:35:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pf0-x243.google.com (mail-pf0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBCD6E101E for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 23:35:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf0-x243.google.com with SMTP id e3so3216929pfi.10 for ; Wed, 06 Dec 2017 15:35:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4eW7FDfRXJ3kJkWlC+k/CerXDtW/GbGzTh5LWDiSO6g=; b=QB//+tjm2rrS/evtynoB7u51K8NjDc0fyPxAw84+B735/1448qa3M491Ywq9Qe+SCq nfRSxfilV7YhnKmamaaWUVHvf1+se6K/TJcuW3dDvmSBVLp2wZGyHfFrZ3mcG47sj5TY mNbVJEsbzcMqpOLUv/44Kl8KcAR2x9rMS/892/EN7iL42U1B81ScFFI7gfyCOMyGiv0C m9uaAwvbQ8UTKaq4V+YMqpgMPEUmrvO4h50fnro8twkkabeDkGgiSSVE/E60aOiQxyRG FcQ9sg31TSV1+rGBmhiNnKpLYPpvn7iJ27qUf6GS0Yhn0IX7BcnUbe+F91AZLsQupgcJ 6a6Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4eW7FDfRXJ3kJkWlC+k/CerXDtW/GbGzTh5LWDiSO6g=; b=scm+cBgb1kjmH8CEAs7BIIx0bFXgPCUGzmfq/PzQJPYmvjpXujkc/BljFI6nmOVtB3 O8G7inm9KvvGg33JGiWIgUXWRt+WLKxGkorNXwub99rklKxXBNdm/oy88sOdR+O+G7/+ YEIfiz0ADqt08zwrWnG2hvqCIwvf5BhjUs+5swWdhRXDsSVFvAamJUDTfBS4GdM0Lz2D A3Ed3HWZCncXA0pVCdQzf0juyrVZG661F5C6APMuljC7+29Uk2ZWDL5w3iTzfwm1TR5/ a5gzKxzBlkrWRYgLQb0PjPHwiFblkUlOd2XO1PmlzYzRsK6QHBgQl/Rv+az0xi55qZN0 U/Gw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6ADaH2DKTLZ9Qe1NWjXJagj1Ayd+d+Kvq9y595IsjFBk1zwKg4 o21cBGTpFLzexbxRsTq/wcr3DmX69uOg9MNOr15QVA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZf9ougESagFF6kL7BC5DhvCxPChZ4z8xxQZhk1kcuuWfmXXmwcsfQwKp9MnMW1M4DBGVgjsnRp9DLIsIsjK1k= X-Received: by 10.84.129.97 with SMTP id 88mr23343237plb.230.1512603311449; Wed, 06 Dec 2017 15:35:11 -0800 (PST) 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 Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.100.151.169 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:35:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20171206232829.GA5249@tp> References: <5A218A49.3050004@youngman.org.uk> <20171206232829.GA5249@tp> From: Rich Freeman Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:35:10 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: tdaUMpJi4P9t80uFo09fCBxVQYY Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 2eb6bad3-4997-4b77-85b3-f9c218e7aaee X-Archives-Hash: 20d379aa2fbd97496831b7745d841412 On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > > I don=E2=80=99t really care about performance. It=E2=80=99s a simple medi= a archive powered > by the cheapest Haswell Celeron I could get (with 16 Gigs of ECC RAM thou= gh > ^^). Sorry if I more or less stole the thread, but this is almost the sam= e > topic. I could use a nudge in either direction. My workplace=E2=80=99s st= orage > comprises many 2=C3=97 mirrors, but I am not a company and I am capped at= four > bays. > > So, Do you have any input for me before I fetch the dice? > IMO the cost savings for parity RAID trumps everything unless money just isn't a factor. Now, with ZFS it is frustrating because arrays are relatively inflexible when it comes to expansion, though that applies to all types of arrays. That is one major advantage of btrfs (and mdadm) over zfs. I hear they're working on that, but in general there are a lot of things in zfs that are more static compared to btrfs. --=20 Rich