4 ms·
ZFS is probably closest to what you want. It allows you to choose the amount of parity on the disk-level (as in: 1,2, or 3 disk parity in raidz1, raidz2 and ra
by uniqueuid 5y ago
ZFS is probably closest to what you want.
It allows you to choose the amount of parity on the disk-level (as in: 1,2, or 3 disk parity in raidz1, raidz2 and raidz3). You can also keep multiple copies of data around with copies=N (but note that when the entire pool fails, those copies are gone - this just protects you by storing multiple copies in different places, potentially on the same disk).
[edit] To add another neat feature that allows for granularity: ZFS can set attributes (compression, record size, encryption, hash algorithm, copies etc.) on the level of logical data sets. So you can have arbitrarily many data stores on a single pool with different settings. Sadly, parity is not one of those attributes - that's set per pool, not per dataset.
- Notanothertoo 5y agoZfs is king imo. Brtfs is the more liberally licensed oss competitor and Refs is the m$ solution.
- genewitch 5y agoMy only issue with ZFS is it only works (ideally, with least effort) with multiples of the same size disks. I got into a bit of an argument on IRC with someone who said "just partition, ZFS can figure it out" and i'm thinking of all of the 128GB and 256GB SSDs, the 640GB spindles, and so on that i want to actually use for data, and it sounds like it'd be more hassle than it's worth. Something like "take everything on this 2TB drive, and put the .PAR/.Pnn archives on at least 2 other "filesystems", be they two 1TB or 2 128, a 256, a 512, and a 1TB. Eventually i think i will start populating 2-4 sata drives on my 15-25W TDP celerons, atoms, and so on, and just give them away to people who need a computer for whatever. I'll even toss in a GTX 1050ti.