Originally posted by squirrl
View Post
Btrfs On Ubuntu Is Running Well
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Ra698shida View Post
Leave a comment:
-
-
What we really need in linux is something like Amplidata's Distributed Storage System. That thing looks ideal for both uptime, bit rot, and data loss.
Sort of like a next-gen zfs.
Leave a comment:
-
-
-
Also
jones_supa writes "The sudden death of a solid-state drive in Linus Torvalds' main workstation has led to the work on the 3.12 Linux kernel being temporarily suspended. Torvalds has not been able to recover anything from the drive. Subsystem maintainers who have outstanding pull requests may need to...
Damn :P
Leave a comment:
-
-
Of Raids and Backups
RAID is old news with drives approaching 4 TB or surpassing. Having multiple storage devices on a network is safer. It's wasted resources packing mutiple drives in a single point of failure!
What really matters is the performance Virtual Machines experience on the file-systems.
I always figured JFS was a better solution because of the low performance overhead.
This frees up CPU cycles for the Virtuals.
That's one test I'd like to see; perhaps it's being tested but I don't recall seeing the statistics.
Just from my experience alone, I've noticed I can't tell much difference in any of them: Ext4, JFS, XFS, BTRFS
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by benmoran View PostYour question was whether or not there exist any advantages. Resizing arrays is one. Many of us who deal with big storage arrays daily DO have to use these features. You seem to now be arguing that you don't need any more advanced features, and that's fine.
Again, I use MDADM extensively. It has it's limitations.
When you buy new car, is your sole criteria how elegantly will your mechanic be able to replace spark plugs, air filter or oil ?
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by Brane215 View PostWho cares about few extra steps ? Do you reshape your disk storage this way several times per day ?
I USE it every day for most of the time. So, its performance during work is by far primary for me. Qty of work at one-time maintenance work, if it is not excessive or unreasonable is totally irellevant.
I don't have RAID for fun.
Again, I use MDADM extensively. It has it's limitations.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by kenneth13 View PostThe real danger with mdadm raid 5 arrays is tripping on an unrecoverable read error rate (URE) on a second drive while trying to re-silver the array. I've come across posts that made me worry: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/wh...ng-in-2009/162 .
People suggest backing up the data (if not having done so already) BEFORE replacing the failed drive to avoid danger of hitting an URE. For arrays near or over 12TB the danger is real.
I've got a 4x2TB raid 5 ext4 array and I've successfully replaced 2 bad drives over a period of time, but I'm looking forward to replacing it with btrfs when its raid 5 and btrfs-tools become mature enough.
I hope you enjoy your large array, but please make sure you take regular backups.
1. I know that RAID, as it stands now, has its deficiencies. Or maybe it is too stroong of a word. Raid gets done exactly what is possible within redundancy allowed. If you need more, well add more mechanisms with redundancy.
2. Even in that example, I don't think it's that bad. In that example with a drive with one bad sector, you could force rebuild around it and be prepared to lose a file or two.
3. That is solvable with RAID-6.
4. You always have an option of professional recovery, which shouldn't be too expensive or painfull if we are talking about simple sector copy of the drive.
5. What makes you think that Btrfs underlying solution wil be superior in practice ?
I have nothing against Btrfs and I agree that at least its the PR pamphlet adresses _some_interesting problems. I just have hard time believing it is time to jump the Btrfs bandwagon for the majority.
And, to be blunt, it seems to much of the tutti-fruti solution to me. Instead being focused on one compatible set of objectives with maximum efficiency, they seem to be trying to cover everything they can and end result is less than stellar. Hydroplane is neither competitite as a plane nor as a boat. It "needs" right customer profile. Btrs feels a bit the same way, at least from afar...
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by kernelOfTruth View Postunfortunately I always got issues when trying out the rt-kernel & ZFS doesn't work yet with it - so I'll settle for BFS + tweaking on an up-to-date kernel for now
Anyway, After further testing, those initial ipc/sem patches kick ass! ~ it's a definite performance improvment. Next, I'm gonna play around with the cfq-iosched patch, mutex_don't deal with unnecessary waiters patch, sync dont block flusher thread patch and throw in the optimize_strlen_using simd instructions patch too - just adding them to the queue now.
Originally posted by kernelOfTruth View Postmost of the recent performance-related improvements & patches for btrfs can be found on http://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&r=1&b=201308&w=2 are from August until now
glad it helps
thx again, cheerz
Leave a comment:
-
Leave a comment: