From: Martin <m_btrfs@ml1.co.uk>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ditto blocks on ZFS
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 00:05:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <lljbfo$6vm$1@ger.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1795587.Ol58oREtZ7@xev>
Very good comment from Ashford.
Sorry, but I see no advantages from Russell's replies other than for a
"feel-good" factor or a dangerous false sense of security. At best,
there is a weak justification that "for metadata, again going from 2% to
4% isn't going to be a great problem" (storage is cheap and fast).
I thought an important idea behind btrfs was that we avoid by design in
the first place the very long and vulnerable RAID rebuild scenarios
suffered for block-level RAID...
On 21/05/14 03:51, Russell Coker wrote:
> Absolutely. Hopefully this discussion will inspire the developers to
> consider this an interesting technical challenge and a feature that
> is needed to beat ZFS.
Sorry, but I think that is completely the wrong reasoning. ...Unless
that is you are some proprietary sales droid hyping features and big
numbers! :-P
Personally I'm not convinced we gain anything beyond what btrfs will
eventually offer in any case for the n-way raid or the raid-n Cauchy stuff.
Also note that usually, data is wanted to be 100% reliable and
retrievable. Or if that fails, you go to your backups instead. Gambling
"proportions" and "importance" rather than *ensuring* fault/error
tolerance is a very human thing... ;-)
Sorry:
Interesting idea but not convinced there's any advantage for disk/SSD
storage.
Regards,
Martin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-21 23:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-16 3:07 ditto blocks on ZFS Russell Coker
2014-05-17 12:50 ` Martin
2014-05-17 14:24 ` Hugo Mills
2014-05-18 16:09 ` Russell Coker
2014-05-19 20:36 ` Martin
2014-05-19 21:47 ` Brendan Hide
2014-05-20 2:07 ` Russell Coker
2014-05-20 14:07 ` Austin S Hemmelgarn
2014-05-20 20:11 ` Brendan Hide
2014-05-20 14:56 ` ashford
2014-05-21 2:51 ` Russell Coker
2014-05-21 23:05 ` Martin [this message]
2014-05-22 11:10 ` Austin S Hemmelgarn
2014-05-22 22:09 ` ashford
2014-05-23 3:54 ` Russell Coker
2014-05-23 8:03 ` Duncan
2014-05-21 23:29 ` Konstantinos Skarlatos
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-05-22 15:28 Tomasz Chmielewski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='lljbfo$6vm$1@ger.gmane.org' \
--to=m_btrfs@ml1.co.uk \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).