3 ms·
BTRFS does have stable, usable multi-disk support. The RAID 0, 1, and 10 modes are fine. I've been using BTRFS RAID1 for over a decade and across numerous disk
by wtallis 1y ago
BTRFS does have stable, usable multi-disk support. The RAID 0, 1, and 10 modes are fine. I've been using BTRFS RAID1 for over a decade and across numerous disk failures. It's by far the best solution for building a durable array on my home server stuffed full of a random assortment of disks—ZFS will never have the flexibility to be useful with mismatched capacities like this. It's only the parity RAID modes that BTRFS lacks, and that's a real disadvantage but is hardly the whole story.
- Filligree 1y agoThat’s nice and all, but I have five disks in my server. I want the 6 mode. In practice RAIDZ2 works great.
- wtallis 1y agoIn the case of five disks of the same capacity, RAID6 or RAIDZ2 only gets you 20% more capacity than btrfs RAID1. That's not exactly a huge disparity, usually not enough to be a show-stopper on its own. There are plenty of scenarios where the features ZFS has which btrfs lacks are more important than the features that btrfs has which ZFS lacks. My point is simply that btrfs RAID1 has its uses and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
- Trixter 1y agoThis is missing one of the finer points of redundancy: With 4 disks, losing two of them could take out a RAID-10 (both halves of a stripe component), but losing two cannot take out a RAID-6. The fact that btrfs isn't stable after 15+ years for parity setups is, IMO, unreasonable.