From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roman Mamedov Subject: Re: mdadm vs zfs for home server? Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 01:20:13 +0600 Message-ID: <20130528012013.2d428584@natsu> References: <20130527180912.GA6068@septictank.raw-sewage.fake> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_//1Bwot/vPJse6ySw6GnMVdr"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130527180912.GA6068@septictank.raw-sewage.fake> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Matt Garman Cc: linux-raid List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Sig_//1Bwot/vPJse6ySw6GnMVdr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 27 May 2013 13:09:12 -0500 Matt Garman wrote: > the way to go. I don't know how necessary it is, but I like the > idea of having the in-filesystem checksums to prevent "silent" data > corruption. On some machines I run btrfs on top of MD RAID. In this configuration btrfs can't heal checksum errors, but will still detect them if they appear. btrfs now also has built-in RAID5 and RAID6 which *can* heal errors, but that's still way too immature for being actually used. In fact one may consider btrfs as a whole to be not mature enough yet, but in my experience without using fancy cutting edge features like RAID it generally works, and= I don't remember seeing mailing list reports of any data loss or corruption f= rom anyone in a long time. --=20 With respect, Roman --Sig_//1Bwot/vPJse6ySw6GnMVdr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlGjse0ACgkQTLKSvz+PZwjtpwCfcdEapcCYTpqH2mAf1l8wYdzP TU8An0NtbKrq3XjSWzDRO5LhH3mz7EDR =1S0u -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_//1Bwot/vPJse6ySw6GnMVdr--