Reiser5 File-System Working On New Features Like Data Tiering, Burst Buffers

[zyxxel]

Yeah, I use single storage and a combination of scheduled rsync and syncthing for backups. For home users I think it's extremely convenient to use single disks so you are able to just pop a drive out of one machine and stick it into another and instantly access the data. If a disk fails, you just junk it, put in a replacement, and repopulate the data from backups.

With RAID5/6 you need to move the entire disk array and its configuration around, and on a disk failure you need to do a repair.



Seconded.

For work data, mirroring is good because of the simplicity and real-time security.

But for more static data, Snapraid is a quite nice alternative - basically an "off-line" RAID-5/6 where you run a command to refresh the parity. And since it doesn't stripe the data, each individual disk may use whatever file system you like and can be moved to a different computer for stand-alone use. And you can decide if you want 1, 2, 3, ... number of parity disks. And you can do scrub to verify there isn't any data corruption.

RAID-5 is only recovering from a disk failure - not from data failure. It just can't figure out which of the drives that has a corruption when it sees a parity error. So solutions that either in the file system or with helper software performs data scrubs are quite helpful.

[S.Pam]

"For work data, mirroring is good because of the simplicity and real-time security."

Just remember that RAID is never a replacement for backups. It only reduces downtime when a disk fails. Of course this is why industry uses it. For home use, the cost of downtime vs restore of backups is different.

[cynic]

"For work data, mirroring is good because of the simplicity and real-time security."

Just remember that RAID is never a replacement for backups. It only reduces downtime when a disk fails. Of course this is why industry uses it. For home use, the cost of downtime vs restore of backups is different.

actually, with btrfs it also has a data consistency function and sefl healing function in case of data corruption on one disk of the array (ie: bad sectors or bitrot)

[Vistaus]

ReiserFS - a file system to die for. :khe: :khe: :khe:

Come on, grow up already.

[Vistaus]

Seriously, a thought came into my head

You mean you copied a thought? 'Cause every ReiserFS article has childish jokes like that. So you were childish *and* didn't even come up with your own joke. I'm sure your parents will be proud.

[zyxxel]

"For work data, mirroring is good because of the simplicity and real-time security."

Just remember that RAID is never a replacement for backups. It only reduces downtime when a disk fails. Of course this is why industry uses it. For home use, the cost of downtime vs restore of backups is different.

Yes - which is why I use a distributed storage for static or semi-static data.

But for dynamic data, it isn't practical to constantly mirror to another system. So mirrored disks does a good job of reducing the danger from data loss until next backup is run.

[CommunityMember]

Are they still hoping to eventually upstream this?

That would likely require a lot of structural work, as it reportedly does not meet current kernel coding standards (and at least previously there was no interest in do that type of work by that project as it did not move the filesystem itself forward).

[vladpetric]

Yeah...

Maybe Michael should put a field with the years of the profile, si so one could filter out posts from people with less than X years.

I was like that when I had 15 years old. Fuck this, haha! Fuck that, haha!

So maybe that's the only problem...

These forums are probably meant as a sandbox, for all the crap to be dumped into ...

[starshipeleven]

RAID-5 is only recovering from a disk failure - not from data failure. It just can't figure out which of the drives that has a corruption when it sees a parity error. So solutions that either in the file system or with helper software performs data scrubs are quite helpful.

A RAID5 system that sees a parity error will rebuild the data using the parity information. You don't need to lose a drive.

The point is that a RAID5 does not check the checksums on read, and the rebuild process is long and slow as it has to rescan the entire array.

So while this would be able to deal with data corruption too, it sucks in a very big way if compared to filesystem-level RAID that check the checksums on read and can self-heal in real time as it knows where the data is.

[starshipeleven]

You mean you copied a thought?

"great mind thinks alike" is really a "similar minds think alike", so any moron can come up with the same moronic ideas as any other while still completely isolated from others of his kind.