From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BTRFS RAID5 filesystem corruption during balance
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 04:43:16 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <pan$1c831$68d3ab4d$212d5e11$aaf7c2b4@cox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: loom.20150521T231006-840@post.gmane.org
Jan Voet posted on Thu, 21 May 2015 21:43:36 +0000 as excerpted:
> I recently upgraded a quite old home NAS system (Celeron M based) to
> Ubuntu 14.04 with an upgraded linux kernel (3.19.8) and BTRFS tools
> v3.17.
> This system has 5 brand new 6TB drives (HGST) with all drives directly
> handled by BTRFS, both data and metadata in RAID5.
FWIW, btrfs raid5 (and raid6, together called raid56 mode) is still
extremely new, only normal runtime implemented as originally introduced,
with complete repair from a device failure only completely implemented in
kernel 3.19, and while in theory complete, that implementation is still
very immature and poorly tested, and *WILL* have bugs, one of which you
may very well have found.
For in-production use, therefore, btrfs raid56 mode, while now at least
in theory complete, is really too immature at this point to recommend.
I'd recommend either btrfs raid1 or raid10 modes as more stable within
btrfs at this point, tho by the end of this year or early next, I predict
raid56 mode to have stabilized to about that of the rest of btrfs, which
is to say, not entirely stable, but heading that way.
IOW, for btrfs in general, the sysadmin's backup rule that if you don't
have backups by definition you don't care about the data regardless of
claims to the contrary, and untested would-be backups aren't backups
until you complete them by testing that they can be read and restored
from, continues to apply even more than to more stable filesystems, and
keeping up with current is still very important as by doing so you're
avoiding known and already fixed bugs. Given those constraints, btrfs
is /in/ /general/ usable. But not yet raid56 mode, which I'd definitely
consider to still be breakable at any time.
So certainly for the multi-TB of data you're dealing with, which you say
yourself takes some time (and is thus not something you can afford to
backup and restore trivially), I'd say stay off btrf raid56 until around
the end of the year or early next, at which point it should have
stabilized. Until then, consider either btrfs raid1 mode (which I use),
or for that amount of data, more likely btrfs raid10 mode.
Or if you must keep raid5 due to device and data size limitations,
consider sticking with mdraid5 or similar, for now, potentially with
btrfs on top, or perhaps with the more stable xfs or ext3/4 (or my
favorite reiserfs, which I have found /extremely/ reliable here, even
with less than absolutely reliable hardware, the old tales about it being
unreliable were from pre-data=ordered times, but that's early kernel 2.4
era and thus rather ancient history, now, but as they say, YMMV...).
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-22 4:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-21 21:43 BTRFS RAID5 filesystem corruption during balance Jan Voet
2015-05-22 4:43 ` Duncan [this message]
2015-05-22 18:11 ` Jan Voet
2015-05-23 15:02 ` Jan Voet
2015-06-20 3:50 ` Russell Coker
2015-05-22 19:15 ` Chris Murphy
2015-05-23 2:56 ` Duncan
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='pan$1c831$68d3ab4d$212d5e11$aaf7c2b4@cox.net' \
--to=1i5t5.duncan@cox.net \
--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).