Re: Btrfs is amazing! (a lack-of-bug report)

[Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1484 bytes --]

On 2015-08-19 13:24, Tyler Bletsch wrote:
> Thanks.  I'd consider raid6, but since I'll be backing up to a second
> btrfs raid5 array, I think I have sufficient redundancy, since
> equivalent to raid 5+1 on paper. I'm doing that rather than something
> like raid10 in a single box because I want the redundancy of a second
> physical server so I can failover in the event of a system-level
> component failure.
>
> (And of course, "failover" means "continue being able to watch TV shows
> and stuff")
>
> A question about what you said -- when you say people have hit bugs in
> the raid56 code, which flavor do these bugs tend to be? Are they
> "minding my own business and suddenly it falls over" bugs or "I tried to
> do something weird with btrfs and it screwed up" bugs?
More along the lines of 'I tried to do something that works fine with 
the other raid profiles and it kind of messed up the filesystem'.  In 
general, you should be safe as long as you are using at least Linux 4.0 
and the most recent version of btrfs-progs.  It's been a while since I 
saw any raid56 related bugs that caused actual data loss.  If you are 
using this on SSD's though, I would wait, there are known issues with 
DISCARD/TRIM not working correctly on btrfs right now (nothing involving 
data loss, just problems with it not properly trimming free space and 
therefore causing issues with wear-leveling), and it looks like the fix 
won't be in 4.2 as of right now.



[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3019 bytes --]