Re: I need to P. are we almost there yet?

[Phillip Susi <psusi@ubuntu.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 12/31/2014 12:27 PM, ashford@whisperpc.com wrote:
> I see this as a CRITICAL design flaw.  The reason for calling it
> CRITICAL is that System Administrators have been trained for >20
> years that RAID-10 can usually handle a dual-disk failure, but the
> BTRFS implementation has effectively ZERO chance of doing so.

Sure, but you never *count* on that second failure since it is a (
relatively even ) probability game.

> In order to remove this potentially catestrophic confusion, BTRFS
> should either call their "RAID-10" implementation something else,
> or they should adhere to the long-established definition of
> RAID-10.

Personally I'd prefer it follow the way mdadm does it, which is much
better than what the rest of the industry calls raid-10, which is to
say, simply a naive raid-0 on top of raid-1.  I'm very happy with my 3
disk offset layout raid-10 which gets the sequential read throughput
of a 3 disk raid-0, while still being able to handle a single drive
failure.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUpIkQAAoJENRVrw2cjl5R/wAIAKNU0NfEFGXLQK0lB1kZMJQt
WrBjKih8xG2WIYAqYCHoNTWJtmCZOCHtltt+OsUb8Pa8u075ALtEQBRNminLLuqV
LjREOyOzvzaDfNSEhptdBZ4YazqFt6UChWtu7RWhMtb7u61pmqMJatDhxLe+2CF9
YQE3qgLfP+PAMIGO/xN5m+hYba4hbF/MoqQ/XN7Z1VWvT9FNR7Dn8frflpmI2Cyh
iAravNS78hUjbxTtNz1qVXLosDVsjyZpz9UY9occNJ/vlF/GMd5q2c8xXkDTczGB
O9B55OXGzfmzPZzlNJ2MyBLgwQx/huPH8RiyuuIdy3AVubc/pXuAZQqaydf/lQg=
=qwW+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----