Originally posted by starshipeleven
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Bcachefs Still Being Developed As A Next-Gen Linux File-System
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by pal666 View Postit is enough to compare implemented features
i.e. exactly zero.
btw, btrfs is a few features on top of block layer
and btrfs magically becomes worse than non-existent raid5 bcachefs
Last edited by starshipeleven; 06 July 2016, 09:00 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pal666 View Postwith raid1 you don't need controller
Still not explaining why I should buy 4 more drives, a bigger case, a sata controller card, and a bigger PSU instead of going with raid5 in my example.
Ah, as you go higher with array size it gets worse.
EDIT: on windows you still need RAID controllers even for RAID1 (technically it has software raid but it's not that reliable)Last edited by starshipeleven; 06 July 2016, 09:04 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostStill not explaining why I should buy 4 more drives, a bigger case, a sata controller card, and a bigger PSU instead of going with raid5 in my example.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ssokolow View Post
RAID6 adds another drive and allows you to survive 2 failures, and this puts it in the "master race" vs RAID10 where you can survive 2 failures (of the right disks) or 1 failure (of the wrong disks).
But RAID6 has total shit performance, also rebuild times are a joke, while RAID10 is basically a safer RAID1, you still waste half your disks for mostly dual parity, which is dumb.
The only way to go beyond this inflexible RAID block-level shit from the eighties is having filesystems manage their own RAID.
For example, btrfs (but probably also ZFS) knows where is data and where is metadata in its array so read/writes during rebuild are just what it is needed (i.e. the blocks actually used by data or metadata are copied over), and there are no reads to disk sectors that aren't involved in this at all (so no 1 read per disk like raid5, nor syncing around free space too, which is dumb)
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index...._btrfs_raid.3F
And again the same principle applies to btrfs RAID1, it's not a RAID1 in the common sense of the word where EACH AND EVERY DISK HAS THE SAME EXACT CLONE OF THE SAME EXACT DATA, stuff is spread around the available space in two copies.
It's more similar to RAID5 in practice and space gains, allows you to place uneven amounts of disks, and use disks with different capacities (within reason, it still must be able to clone stuff on 2 places, so you can make a RAID1 with a 2TB drive and 2x 1TB drives, and it will be fine) even if it does not have striping. That's what it can pull off just by managing its own multi-drive arrays.Last edited by starshipeleven; 07 July 2016, 06:40 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View Poststill whining you two?
You can get answers from him thanks to the advanced tecnology of 21st century called "e-mail". Here you can find contact info, man up and send him a mail: https://bcache.evilpiepirate.org/#index4h1
This is a news website, so i come here that i don't have to dig around the web to find answers myself. Makes sense?
Now, at my job, when i claim that some aproach to solve a problem, i explain why. Otherwise, my boss would just tell me to fuk off.
That's how things work.
I don't make the rules.
But i do follow them.
Comment
-
Originally posted by nomadewolf View PostThanks for the insight, but...
This is a news website, so i come here that i don't have to dig around the web to find answers myself. Makes sense?
If you need that info you go and ask him, or you stfu as he does not see what you post here.
Comment
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostYes. What does not make sense is whining about lack of info, repeatedly.
If you need that info you go and ask him, or you stfu as he does not see what you post here.
Also, it does look promising.
Let's wait and see.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pal666 View Postraid in fs is better, but i don't understand why someone wants 5/6. it is raid1 for poor people, slower and less robust. drive space is cheap.
2. RAID1 is *definitely* *less* *robust* than RAID6. Let try doing some math. Say I've got 12 x 4TB drives and I need at least 24TB of usable space. With RAID1, I need to create an array of 6 two-drive sets and somehow link them together. In theory, I can lose 6 drives out of array *as-long* as I don't lose two drives out of the same two-drive set. With RAID6 I can create a RAID with 8 active drives + 4 hot spares, lose *any* 2 drives at any given moment and 6 throughout the life of the array. Lets continue, shall we? Why not create RAID60 w/ two sets of 5+1 RAID6 array. Not only you can lose 4 drivers simultaneously (two out of each set), it'll also run circles around RAID1 in *both* read speed *and* write speed.
.... But sure, RAID5/6 is RAID1 for poor people. Right.
- Gilboa
* E.g. 2U HP Apollo 4200 w/ 28 x 8TB drives.
** Granted, such setups are usually done w/ hardware, RAIDs, but as others pointed out, a FS based RAID w/ checksum has is more capable than a dumb hardware. Plus, I do have a couple of 30-40+TB software RAIDs.Last edited by gilboa; 13 July 2016, 10:44 AM.oVirt-HV1: Intel S2600C0, 2xE5-2658V2, 128GB, 8x2TB, 4x480GB SSD, GTX1080 (to-VM), Dell U3219Q, U2415, U2412M.
oVirt-HV2: Intel S2400GP2, 2xE5-2448L, 120GB, 8x2TB, 4x480GB SSD, GTX730 (to-VM).
oVirt-HV3: Gigabyte B85M-HD3, E3-1245V3, 32GB, 4x1TB, 2x480GB SSD, GTX980 (to-VM).
Devel-2: Asus H110M-K, i5-6500, 16GB, 3x1TB + 128GB-SSD, F33.
Comment
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostBut RAID6 has total shit performance, also rebuild times are a joke.
- GilboaoVirt-HV1: Intel S2600C0, 2xE5-2658V2, 128GB, 8x2TB, 4x480GB SSD, GTX1080 (to-VM), Dell U3219Q, U2415, U2412M.
oVirt-HV2: Intel S2400GP2, 2xE5-2448L, 120GB, 8x2TB, 4x480GB SSD, GTX730 (to-VM).
oVirt-HV3: Gigabyte B85M-HD3, E3-1245V3, 32GB, 4x1TB, 2x480GB SSD, GTX980 (to-VM).
Devel-2: Asus H110M-K, i5-6500, 16GB, 3x1TB + 128GB-SSD, F33.
Comment
Comment