lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Btrfs: broken file system design (was Unbound(?) internal fragmentation in Btrfs)
On 06/26/2010 01:18 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> 25.06.2010 22:58, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>
>> On 06/24/2010 06:06 PM, Daniel Taylor wrote:
>>
> []
>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Daniel Taylor
>>>> <Daniel.Taylor@wdc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Just an FYI reminder. The original test (2K files) is utterly
>>>>> pathological for disk drives with 4K physical sectors, such as
>>>>> those now shipping from WD, Seagate, and others. Some of the
>>>>> SSDs have larger (16K0 or smaller blocks (2K). There is also
>>>>> the issue of btrfs over RAID (which I know is not entirely
>>>>> sensible, but which will happen).
>>>>>
> Why it is not sensible to use btrfs on raid devices?
> Nowadays raid is just everywhere, from 'fakeraid' on AHCI to
> large external arrays on iSCSI-attached storage. Sometimes
> it is nearly imposisble to _not_ use RAID, -- many servers
> comes with a built-in RAID card which can't be turned off or
> disabled. And hardware raid is faster (at least in theory)
> at least because it puts less load on various system busses.
>
> To many "enterprise folks" a statement "we don't need hw raid,
> we have better solution" sounds like "we're just a toy, don't
> use".
>
> Hmm? ;)
>
> /mjt, who always used and preferred _software_ raid due to
> multiple reasons, and never used btrfs so far.
>

Absolutely no reason that you would not use btrfs on hardware raid
volumes (or software RAID for that matter).

Ric



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-26 13:59    [W:0.220 / U:0.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site