From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f44.google.com ([209.85.215.44]:36676 "EHLO mail-lf0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752588AbcJKRXo (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Oct 2016 13:23:44 -0400 Received: by mail-lf0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b75so51083367lfg.3 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 10:23:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: From: Tomasz Kusmierz Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 18:16:25 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: RAID system with adaption to changed number of disks To: Philip Louis Moetteli Cc: "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: I think you just described all the benefits of btrfs in that type of configuration .... unfortunately after btrfs RAID 5 & 6 was marked as OK it got marked as "it will eat your data" (and there is a tone of people in random places poping up with raid 5 & 6 that just killed their data) On 11 October 2016 at 16:14, Philip Louis Moetteli wrote: > Hello, > > > I have to build a RAID 6 with the following 3 requirements: > > • Use different kinds of disks with different sizes. > • When a disk fails and there's enough space, the RAID should be able to reconstruct itself out of the degraded state. Meaning, if I have e. g. a RAID with 8 disks and 1 fails, I should be able to chose to transform this in a non-degraded (!) RAID with 7 disks. > • Also the other way round: If I add a disk of what size ever, it should redistribute the data, so that it becomes a RAID with 9 disks. > > I don’t care, if I have to do it manually. > I don’t care so much about speed either. > > Is BTrFS capable of doing that? > > > Thanks a lot for your help! >