4 ms·
RAID-Z expansion is being worked on: https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/pull/8853 https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/pull/8853 Last I checked BTRFS RAID5/6 was a dumps
by tw04 6y ago
RAID-Z expansion is being worked on:
https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/pull/8853 https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/pull/8853
Last I checked BTRFS RAID5/6 was a dumpster fire and unusable in production. Have they actually open sourced the ability to fix bitrot detection with mdraid? If not, it's kind of irrelevant.
So... once again down votes without response - BTRFS raid still isn't recommended and the file healing isn't compatible with MDRAID I assume and you just don't like the fact I pointed it out? The "I'm downvoting because you pointed out a flaw in my logic" @HN is disappointing.
- accelbred 6y agoIf you're using RAID-Z on zfs, your comparison isn't fair. Rather than use RAID56 with btrfs, the equivalent would be to get 1 or 2 disk redundancy with raid1 or raid1c3.
- trasz 6y agoNot really - RAIDZ is basically RAID5 without the write hole problem. ZFS equivalent to RAID1 is called 'mirror', and is... well, a mirror.
- accelbred 6y agoYes, and btrfs's raid1 isn't a mirror. Btrfs's raid1c3 and raid1c4 are its alternative to raid5/6 without the write hole.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- trasz 6y agoNo, it's still a mirror, just spread over more than two devices. Size overhead is still that of a mirror, ie quite a bit higher than that of raidz.
- tw04 6y agoRAID-Z is the equivalent of RAID-5. RAID-Z2 is the equivalent of RAID-6. RAID-Z3 would be the equivalent of RAID-7 (or whatever the standard is named for 3-disk parity). This is strictly speaking to how it deals with data and parity, the implementations are obviously different. RAID-1 would be a mirror in ZFS parlance.
- accelbred 6y agoBTRFS raid1 isn't mirroring drives though, it means there are two copies of each extent across the whole set of 2+ drives. and BTRFS and raid1c3 and raid1c4 are 3 and 4 copies.