similar to: stripe alignment consideration for btrfs on RAID5

Hi all. I was doing some testing with writing out data to a BTFS filesystem with the compress-force option. With 1 program running, I saw btfs-delalloc taking about 1 CPU worth of time, much as could be expected. I then started up 2 programs at the same time, writing data to the BTRFS volume. btrfs-delalloc still only used 1 CPU worth of time. Is btrfs-delalloc threaded, to where it can use

Hello, ?s there anyway to create raid6 or raid5 level glusterfs installation ? >From docs I undetstood that I can do raid1 base glusterfs installation or radi0 (strapting data too all servers ) and raid10 based solution but raid10 based solution is not cost effective because need too much server. Do you have a plan for keep one or two server as a parity for whole glusterfs system

We have several DELL servers with MD1000 connect to it. Server will install CENTOS 5.x X86_64 version. My questions are: 1. Which configuration have better performance RAID5, RAID50 or RAID60? 2. how much performance difference? ___________________________________________________ ??????? ? ???????????????? http://messenger.yahoo.com.tw/

We discussed using the top bits of the chunk type field field to store a number of redundant disks -- so instead of RAID5, RAID6, etc., we end up with a single ''RAID56'' flag, and the amount of redundancy is stored elsewhere. This attempts it, but I hate it and don''t really want to do it. The type field is designed as a bitmask, and _used_ as a bitmask in a number of

On 2017-02-15, John R Pierce <pierce at hogranch.com> wrote: > On 2/14/2017 4:48 PM, tdukes at palmettoshopper.com wrote: > >> 3 - Can additional drive(s) be added later with a changein RAID level >> without current data loss? > > Only some systems support that sort of restriping, and its a dangerous > activity (if the power fails or system crashes midway through

Greetings! I''m testing raid6, and recently added two drives. I haven''t been able to properly resume a balance operation: the number of total chunks is always too low. It seems that the balance starts and pauses properly, but always resumes with ~7 chunks. Here''s an example: vendikar tim # uname -r 3.10.0-031000rc4-generic vendikar tim # btrfs fi sho Label:

So when I couldn't get the raid10 to work, I decided to do raid5. Everything installed and looked good. I left it overnight to rebuild the array, and when I came in this morning, everything was frozen. Upon reboot, it said that 2 of the 4 devices for the raid5 array failed. Luckily, I didn't have any data on it, but how do I know that the same thing won't happen when I have

This may be a coincidence or not, but I''m building a new XEN system for myself for work purposes. I support several different versions of a software that cannot be installed at the same time, so I decided I wanted to setup a XEN domU for each. I had 5 spare 500GB drives so I put them in my system and partitioned them so I have a RAID1 boot, a RAID5 root and a RAID5 images. I got

Andreas, why is it relevant only in case of RAID5 or RAID6? regards, Martin On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca> wrote: > Note that stride and stripe width only make sense for RAI-5/6 arrays. > For RAID-1 it doesn't really matter. > > Cheers, Andreas > >> On Mar 6, 2014, at 13:46, Martin T <m4rtntns@gmail.com> wrote: >>

Hi! > [ANNOUNCE] Btrfs v0.9 > [...] > * Stripe size parameter to mkfs.btrfs (-s size_in_bytes). Extents will > be aligned to the stripe size for performance. > [...] http://fixunix.com/kernel/258991-[announce]-btrfs-v0-9-a.html versus > -s, --sectorsize size > Specify the sectorsize, the minimum block allocation. (man mkfs.btrfs with btrfs-tools

Hi all, we got a new test system here and I just also tested btrfs raid6 on that. Write performance is slightly lower than hw-raid (LSI megasas) and md-raid6, but it probably would be much better than any of these two, if it wouldn''t read all the during the writes. Is this a known issue? This is with linux-3.9.2. Thanks, Bernd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Hi all, Sorry for the OT. I've got an IBM N3300-A10 NAS. It runs Data Ontap 7.2.5.1. The problem is, from the docs it says that it only supports either RAID-DP or RAID4. What I want to achieve is Max Storage Capacity, so I change it from RAID-DP to RAID4, but with RAID4, the maximum disk in a RAID Group decrease from 14 to 7. In the end, either using RAID-DP or RAID4, the capacity is the same.

Hiya, Recently, a btrfs file system of mine started to behave very poorly with some btrfs kernel tasks taking 100% of CPU time. # btrfs fi show /dev/sdb Label: none uuid: b3ce8b16-970e-4ba8-b9d2-4c7de270d0f1 Total devices 3 FS bytes used 4.25TB devid 2 size 2.73TB used 1.52TB path /dev/sdc devid 1 size 2.70TB used 1.49TB path /dev/sda4 devid 3 size

If we''ve abandoned the idea of putting the number of redundant blocks into the top bits of the type bitmask (and I hope we have), then we''re fairly much there. Current code is at: git://, http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/btrfs-raid56.git git://, http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/btrfs-progs-raid56.git We have recovery working, as well as both full-stripe writes

I'm setting up this huge RAID 6 box. I've always thought of hot spares, but I'm reading things that are comparing RAID 5 with a hot spare to RAID 6, implying that the latter doesn't need one. I *certainly* have enough drives to spare in this RAID box: 42 of 'em, so two questions: should I assign one or more hot spares, and, if so, how many? mark

Hi All, I am looking at ZFS and I get that they call it RAIDZ which is similar to RAID 5, but what about RAID 10? Isn''t a RAID 10 setup better for data protection? So if I have 8 x 1.5tb drives, wouldn''t I: - mirror drive 1 and 5 - mirror drive 2 and 6 - mirror drive 3 and 7 - mirror drive 4 and 8 Then stripe 1,2,3,4 Then stripe 5,6,7,8 How does one do this with ZFS?

Signed-off-by: Matias Bjørling <m@bjorling.me> --- man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in | 11 ++++++----- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in b/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in index 41163e0..db8c57c 100644 --- a/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in +++ b/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ mkfs.btrfs uses all the available storage for the filesystem. .TP \fB\-d\fR, \fB\-\-data

Chris and team, hats off on the RAID5/6 being at least experimental. I have been following your work for a year now, and waiting for these days. I am trying to get my head rapped around the architecture for BTRFS before I jump in and start recommending code changes to the branch. What I am trying to understand is the comments in the GIT commit which state: Read/modify/write is done after the

On 06/27/2011 07:46 AM, NeilBrown wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:53:37 +0200 Nico Schottelius > <nico-lkml-20110623@schottelius.org> wrote: > >> Good morning devs, >> >> I''m wondering whether the raid- and volume-management-builtin of btrfs is >> actually a sane idea or not. >> Currently we do have md/device-mapper support for raid >>

Can anyone provide a tutorial or advice on how to configure a software RAID 5 from the command-line (since I did not install Gnome)? I have 8 x 1.5tb Drives. -Jason