From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 459DEC43334 for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2022 17:03:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231153AbiFTRDG (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jun 2022 13:03:06 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40636 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229861AbiFTRDD (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jun 2022 13:03:03 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x133.google.com (mail-lf1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::133]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EAB6339 for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2022 10:03:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x133.google.com with SMTP id a13so8374193lfr.10 for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2022 10:03:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :cc:references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jdC+LhX2FhO4c/wbTC3LFRoilNoTS+1PjGYbgIyPPdc=; b=ASS+k+BF7wf4ci30umMQqxJkku67y5wrtA0h9T3HumQIrm6OriMX+3CtP66jVg5p5B jZpXc7GCMgxDImQ4QX7WAhQwWx4nSeK+uWnI9MUo3QD6s1bxL5zbIV1mmFpVYubonXka t4GkuQbbSijMUThYwk0YbnHOjq0PMqKLKeo8zMuRBnjbxDgCburbNeSeqN/Edo0ebEBh WY0MV+7taGe26veCl7+H3plN+5b11SzqS1ViOXC0aothBlhaKadUt87KyvuwjnYRsCmT lwwcWhsm1NLOBEUcMyQsAsmkLAvz5o+JOnI5WIHBsrgyVMH507WiseTPNE6mMpi7n/KZ hTWg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=jdC+LhX2FhO4c/wbTC3LFRoilNoTS+1PjGYbgIyPPdc=; b=GtewIIRzh9HBaEK/ndRa4PU4aGv2/GLtzsnq3hOqb4jPrBRzgsF6k4sywdA2raDgvi UNrs9fzDaIJqiX1d0Z/O3IMEbaT4Rhz0c8LXNX3yHDUnpjrlOxkiF9y30hAjdN3uqvHr yvDPsmyVucXRHW/75x5wxV/1+3O56AbEMYHNxsLkOS464xWlzgih8o0DQFvtyim50yaO pDur/lU7jJ6O6Xm+5qQo2JBQRjIntjFf9Lu0rqvtID2Zokr+urnD8EUhsghreY/4BQjP s4tLdhfzx49TBPYKGGsK23nuVbStCFMzVDUeXZYkR3ta/NMrd4Mzz/7WIEnUTvfgxph+ Ql1A== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora9GyXaiamDG5A6lx0f/adw9WFPZ4s/bN9i7WaAKaHGnWf+Hvu3O 5Oh/npYj3RUCuG5wDhpFoVDIYCjSxHStK8zu X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1sdyRWiZ9Gn5RorHGBXQSt6MaOrz5iGTPLZPzQSuB8SUC93KSgf6ERfKozHnaJmgnjjEG07Mg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:258a:b0:47d:bb62:910f with SMTP id bf10-20020a056512258a00b0047dbb62910fmr13736296lfb.447.1655744580708; Mon, 20 Jun 2022 10:03:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2a00:1370:8182:2007:7781:ccea:c492:8405? ([2a00:1370:8182:2007:7781:ccea:c492:8405]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f12-20020a19dc4c000000b004786332a849sm1830030lfj.41.2022.06.20.10.03.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Jun 2022 10:03:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2022 20:02:59 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1 Subject: Re: Suggestions for building new 44TB Raid5 array Content-Language: en-US To: Marc MERLIN , Ghislain Adnet Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: <20220611045120.GN22722@merlins.org> <5e1733e6-471e-e7cb-9588-3280e659bfc2@aqueos.com> <20220620150132.GM1664812@merlins.org> From: Andrei Borzenkov In-Reply-To: <20220620150132.GM1664812@merlins.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On 20.06.2022 18:01, Marc MERLIN wrote: >> I have a stupid question to ask : Why use btrfs here ? Is not mdamd+xfs good enough ? > > I use btrfs for historical snapshots and btrfs send/receive remote > backups. > >> If you want snapshot why not use ZFS then ? i try to use btrfs myself and meet a lot of issues with it that i did not had with mdadm+ext4. Perhaps btrfs is not suited to that use (here raid5) ? > > ZFS is not GPL compatible and out of tree. > >> ZFS has crypt, raid5 like array and snapshot and LARC cache allready so no need to add 4 layer on it. It seems a solution for you. > > It has a few of its own issues, but yes, if it were actually GPL > compatible and in the linux kernel source tree, I'd consider it. > > It's also owned by a company (Oracle) ZFS on Linux is not owned by Oracle to my best knowledge. https://openzfs.github.io/openzfs-docs/License.html that has tried to sue others for > billions of dollars over software patents, or even an algorithm, i.e. > not a company I'm willing to trust by any means. > > Marc