From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.145.42]:45302 "EHLO mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752302AbbAGWGl (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jan 2015 17:06:41 -0500 Message-ID: <54ADADE8.4080507@fb.com> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 17:06:32 -0500 From: Josef Bacik MIME-Version: 1.0 To: , Lennart Poettering , Subject: Re: price to pay for nocow file bit? References: <20150107174315.GA21865@gardel-login> <54AD929E.608@fb.com> <54AD9F85.1010608@inwind.it> In-Reply-To: <54AD9F85.1010608@inwind.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/07/2015 04:05 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: >> >>> I am trying to understand the pros and cons of turning this bit >>> on, before I can make this change. So far I see one big pro, but I >>> wonder if there's any major con I should think about? >>> >> >> Nope there's no real con other than you don't get csums, but that >> doesn't really matter for you. Thanks, > > In a btrfs-raid setup, in case of a corrupted sector, is BTRFS able to > rebuild the sector ? > I suppose no; if so this has to be add to the cons I think. > It won't know its corrupted, but it can rebuild if say you yank a drive and add a new one. RAID5/RAID6 would catch corruption of course. Thanks, Josef