From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from magic.merlins.org ([209.81.13.136]:58653 "EHLO mail1.merlins.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750872AbaCWWog (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Mar 2014 18:44:36 -0400 Received: from merlin by mail1.merlins.org with local (Exim 4.80 #2) id 1WRr87-0005cB-BB for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 15:44:35 -0700 Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 15:44:35 -0700 From: Marc MERLIN To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Any use for mkfs.btrfs -d raid5 -m raid1 ? Message-ID: <20140323224435.GC18293@merlins.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: If I lose 2 drives on a raid5, -m raid1 should ensure I haven't lost my metadate. >>From there, would I indeed have small files that would be stored entirely on some of the drives that didn't go missing, and therefore I could recover some data with 2 missing drives? Or is it kind of pointless/waste of space? Actually, would it make btrfs faster for metadata work since it can read from n drives in parallel and get data just a bit faster, or is that mostly negligeable? Thanks, Marc -- "A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R. Microsoft is to operating systems .... .... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/