From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f177.google.com (mail-pl1-f177.google.com [209.85.214.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3929C284686 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 22:19:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.177 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761085185; cv=none; b=FKS3JLP09jlqjLoXaLBNbBSAgGWsU+RJcPDA9pV49JUi3aaAsgLnoh44nckDUoJZ9lt4+Fp44jDhHedSCh0yNsy8AOL9oAfdPvoRgOONEs5cXA9lck7jfOsFqX3cyoSTzY2rT19ACRQXIAlvx9juR4y6WcttkWEwrxlUtnddo7s= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761085185; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EywJ5qqkPxJBUnGZD1/jJhpC/CUF/knssh6TGbX/GxA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=bem9bY78yofKyAPglthuvkSQ6SdjJH+hb/TSYngBKbroqJyIfRy30vEC1l/jgMR6j9iQr7Y6LVXR1EgLMapNjTwndXLs+1NjoYLwb5ktkdpoZRq+E6ElpSZCtbPrxwC85CuELJw7ZfOOgTDgWoXzCRYtpo9DzIhFo1+kmsI2TJ4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=adEW525+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.177 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="adEW525+" Received: by mail-pl1-f177.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2697899a202so2686825ad.0 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 15:19:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1761085183; x=1761689983; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=HiaYjApV6yJV4K3CJ9hX1bYA1zLwFiSLOOxYX+cDHk4=; b=adEW525+TDKmARpllIRXVZ6+2nW42JnhbPo/5ZKMwGXVlnIH0ug+EcHiVcf+DKecwa r42M9ctI3AnUatk5Tjhkyd+jsbAuruOcu5azc0k7jb+ojMP5HKkQImJ4/uk1X0VE6HsD 33cpavcQ4fPt+ez9r24pKnw9tARYuiphftJmi9BhsqywGAfMxm4UZ5hYpW5fc2qGfydu WIleBSnnNiVSva5QDTASVnHwjjuBhnw0tgNQa2jZZwshimnD4yWyhVkVWM6wzcsvs828 aKtf1kHSoAr3gUuxfEHL7smYixe2LZM8FynsjIeYKJPjyKogiimUh1WeVRx70sm9HerY XICg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1761085183; x=1761689983; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=HiaYjApV6yJV4K3CJ9hX1bYA1zLwFiSLOOxYX+cDHk4=; b=K1I8QePnS9MeQCo4y3YQfB91PfS67fs09OgfJyIGY+Pg4vRG5L2U67LhtDLAwITxY+ orrpYw34xl9qzY+YcArbf+51K5Jkk5n/51Sr24JmWCp68Ni7Uziod/gMKJRKiV8BV0QA mhn9fHCgPa2OtyspCsIPyC1IL5DefazfoM8MWScX0+u60EL8WUCppW9Sej0bzsIxe9hd 2I+Z/TshTx/IzVycg6eoCGtDugc+qm5Z3j4njhruxJZ+6pn9HuomIA2SrTe+B8Rc1BPb kuojfLO3RIAqm0qJ6RhZjo8y4zDfFsQ+SxzO4womymCGbPOyzZUnxOZxckybqL/2gNNf Wcug== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXXJcAzXUHkLMPHFppCLHJOyqTUeMjpnvwaBmj9CTJ/hKzAVA7lZPg56AxyXIn5wx1YUfHh3idKsnKI8Q==@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yyjdpx1djoVuqhmalp53wxedC/fYby6O5htI97JiGqf5HKpfLDV innlC/vNX+HQ7qhtZU/vSeeDZSLnwFkA+tuqTOuJCfW3l50Ea+XbwbX5 X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuD1fzrY64waCJjjd+UO3HKijvcaGWrUVntAjO0xltsmVJ+O5KaXz1zLVHtYC2 l00Nmv7qjgx4+2ueVcTCDGWZ6pS2abMik8ck7QOTMj7GmOxyciGJH04Wtp+CFwYzTQ7OjYc048b MZU0RI4PD+pP6iDeJcLAWfRoBGyrHvUXOXh0A/GR27DUTJa3NC8k7J9Aii/foxrm2eSImMvfvd9 SQmP2TWNc3ig0uE084QhQVSqNFCybjipv6/fnwl/REE+/42C2BL9VKOqS13h/qZ2YTeIs7Jyj5k eyeR/we6hfRMs1sef+y6F9Ov7YYq5cNCMD4ND8x5cWN6enDKol3tReWFaaBLEcwZFIe05JnfRL1 bY5w5Ab5bV8XeVeuw9HUx7MM6FPEGiXwqkKIxf6SD5hVCsLAY83+7zqCfuDPfmMLrRl6zDYhxUW OOofjCyTDbT2+XfpSq1TGeOmN3HDCDi/75HebvVuGBuXpnDaHImEUsjXstILnFNA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGtducAKJgYfbsuTFXx/cKFzxloLsqka1bC9rgeo8zlTH4KLvWXnvPO1cFYKzKGBpbP8YuZiA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:dac5:b0:282:2c52:508e with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-292ffbd00d3mr14873525ad.8.1761085183308; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 15:19:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.188.28] (210-5-38-62.ip4.superloop.au. [210.5.38.62]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-29246ebcce8sm120061085ad.18.2025.10.21.15.19.40 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Oct 2025 15:19:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2bef36fe-95a3-40d5-ba8e-c5e2ec27b16f@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 09:19:38 +1100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: btrfs RAID5 or btrfs on md RAID5? To: kreijack@inwind.it, Mark Harmstone , Christoph Anton Mitterer , linux-btrfs References: <20250922070956.GA2624931@tik.uni-stuttgart.de> <3a3df034-4461-4c35-b170-a5084586d2b3@gmail.com> <76ac6739-806e-4e6b-acb3-ebfba74cb8f3@harmstone.com> <2a0a802c-0879-4ae4-9eb1-31b1a02efff4@libero.it> Content-Language: en-US, en-AU From: DanglingPointer In-Reply-To: <2a0a802c-0879-4ae4-9eb1-31b1a02efff4@libero.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Just going back to the original question I posted... Will the BTRFS project decide to fix once and for all RAID56 to fix the write-hole even if the result is a slower-latent result? At least that would be a fully functional production ready offering as version 1.0? Future optimisations and improvements on that version 1.0 will obviously happen for the life of BTRFS and linux which will improve the performance from the impact of adding whatever is needed to fix the write-hole.  Just like everything else!  At least everyone can say it is done, although slower now!  But feature complete!   Making it faster will then incrementally happen as it evolves like everything else. On 22/10/25 06:32, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: > On 21/10/2025 18.45, Mark Harmstone wrote: >> On 21/10/2025 4.53 pm, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: >>> On Tue, 2025-10-21 at 16:46 +0100, Mark Harmstone wrote: >>>> The brutal truth is probably that RAID5/6 is an idea whose time has >>>> passed. >>>> Storage is cheap enough that it doesn't warrant the added latency, >>>> CPU time, >>>> and complexity. >>> >>> That doesn't seem to be generally the case. We have e.g. large storage >>> servers with 24x 22 TB HDDs. >>> >>> RAID6 is plenty enough redundancy for these, loosing 2 HDDs. >>> RAID1 would loose half. >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Chris. >> So for every sector you want to write, you actually need to write three >> and read 21. That seems a very quick way to wear out all those disks. >> And then one starts operating more slowly, which slows down every >> write... > > Yes, it is true that the classic raid5/6 doesn't scale well when the > number > of disks grows. > > However I still think that there is room to a different approach. Like > putting > the redundancy inside the extent to avoid an RMW cycles. This and the > fact that in BTRFS the extents are immutable, would avoid the slowness > that you mention. > >> I'd still use RAID1 in this case. >> > This is faster, but also doesn't scale well (== expensive) when the > storage >  size grows. > > BR > G.Baroncelli >