4 ms·
> It is actually hard for me to imagine why would one use that "single" mode in practice. Yes, this is what I'm starting to discover also. Because single mode
by xk3 4y ago
> It is actually hard for me to imagine why would one use that "single" mode in practice.
Yes, this is what I'm starting to discover also. Because single mode is the default I assumed for the last 9 months that it would provide similar guarantees as MergerFS. But that was my incorrect assumption. As a result of this experiment I'm investigating MergerFS and I will likely switch from multi-disk btrfs to an array of single-disk btrfs under MergerFS.
edit: actually I'm not sure I would convert my array to raid0 because the speeds I'm getting are okay. 20% of data is better than nothing. I did the same with raid0 data profile and only inlined extent files were readable
- theamk 4y agoI used to run a manual version of mergerfs (before it existed) - a bunch of disks, files were manually copied into one of the disks, and scripts maintained "tree of symlinks" which pointed to all the files. Later on, I needed to export this as SMB, so I've added de-referencing overlayfs to generate a single huge disk, and exported that. Worked pretty well and while manual placing required some effort, I could keep similar files together. Later on I ended up buying few more disks and creating large ZFS RAID6 array.. And it "just works" now, no need for custom scripts.