Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 26 Jun 2010 07:55:48 -0400 | From | Ric Wheeler <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |