All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@redhat.com>
To: Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>
Cc: Daniel Taylor <Daniel.Taylor@wdc.com>,
	Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@mikefedyk.com>,
	Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@gmail.com>,
	Mat <jackdachef@gmail.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	The development of BTRFS <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Btrfs: broken file system design (was Unbound(?) internal fragmentation in Btrfs)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 07:55:48 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C25EAC4.1040909@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C258D91.6010308@msgid.tls.msk.ru>

On 06/26/2010 01:18 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> 25.06.2010 22:58, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>    
>> On 06/24/2010 06:06 PM, Daniel Taylor wrote:
>>      
> []
>    
>>>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Daniel Taylor
>>>> <Daniel.Taylor@wdc.com>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>>> Just an FYI reminder.  The original test (2K files) is utterly
>>>>> pathological for disk drives with 4K physical sectors, such as
>>>>> those now shipping from WD, Seagate, and others.  Some of the
>>>>> SSDs have larger (16K0 or smaller blocks (2K).  There is also
>>>>> the issue of btrfs over RAID (which I know is not entirely
>>>>> sensible, but which will happen).
>>>>>            
> Why it is not sensible to use btrfs on raid devices?
> Nowadays raid is just everywhere, from 'fakeraid' on AHCI to
> large external arrays on iSCSI-attached storage.  Sometimes
> it is nearly imposisble to _not_ use RAID, -- many servers
> comes with a built-in RAID card which can't be turned off or
> disabled.  And hardware raid is faster (at least in theory)
> at least because it puts less load on various system busses.
>
> To many "enterprise folks" a statement "we don't need hw raid,
> we have better solution" sounds like "we're just a toy, don't
> use".
>
> Hmm?  ;)
>
> /mjt, who always used and preferred _software_ raid due to
>   multiple reasons, and never used btrfs so far.
>    

Absolutely no reason that you would not use btrfs on hardware raid 
volumes (or software RAID for that matter).

Ric

  reply	other threads:[~2010-06-26 11:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-06-03 14:58 Unbound(?) internal fragmentation in Btrfs Edward Shishkin
2010-06-17 23:29 ` Mat
2010-06-18  8:03   ` Christian Stroetmann
2010-06-18 13:32   ` Btrfs: broken file system design (was Unbound(?) internal fragmentation in Btrfs) Edward Shishkin
2010-06-18 13:45     ` Daniel J Blueman
2010-06-18 13:45       ` Daniel J Blueman
2010-06-18 16:50       ` Edward Shishkin
2010-06-23 23:40         ` Jamie Lokier
2010-06-24  3:43           ` Daniel Taylor
2010-06-24  4:51             ` Mike Fedyk
2010-06-24  4:51               ` Mike Fedyk
2010-06-24  4:51               ` Mike Fedyk
2010-06-24 22:06               ` Daniel Taylor
2010-06-24 22:06                 ` Daniel Taylor
2010-06-24 22:06                 ` Daniel Taylor
2010-06-25  9:15                 ` Btrfs: broken file system design Andi Kleen
2010-06-25 18:58                 ` Btrfs: broken file system design (was Unbound(?) internal fragmentation in Btrfs) Ric Wheeler
2010-06-26  5:18                   ` Michael Tokarev
2010-06-26 11:55                     ` Ric Wheeler [this message]
     [not found]                     ` <57784.2001:5c0:82dc::2.1277555665.squirrel@www.tofubar.com>
2010-06-26 13:47                       ` Ric Wheeler
2010-06-24  9:50             ` David Woodhouse
2010-06-24  9:50               ` David Woodhouse
2010-06-18 18:15       ` Christian Stroetmann
2010-06-18 13:47     ` Chris Mason
2010-06-18 15:05       ` Edward Shishkin
2010-06-18 15:05       ` Edward Shishkin
2010-06-18 15:05         ` Edward Shishkin
2010-06-18 15:10         ` Chris Mason
2010-06-18 16:22           ` Edward Shishkin
2010-06-18 16:22           ` Edward Shishkin
2010-06-18 16:22             ` Edward Shishkin
2010-06-18 18:10             ` Chris Mason
2010-06-18 15:21       ` Christian Stroetmann
2010-06-18 15:22         ` Chris Mason
2010-06-18 15:56     ` Jamie Lokier
2010-06-18 19:25       ` Christian Stroetmann
2010-06-18 19:29       ` Edward Shishkin
2010-06-18 19:35         ` Chris Mason
2010-06-18 22:04           ` Balancing leaves when walking from top to down (was Btrfs:...) Edward Shishkin
2010-06-18 22:04           ` Edward Shishkin
2010-06-18 22:04           ` Edward Shishkin
2010-06-18 22:16             ` Ric Wheeler
2010-06-19  0:03               ` Edward Shishkin
2010-06-21 13:15             ` Chris Mason
2010-06-21 18:00               ` Chris Mason
2010-06-22 14:12                 ` Edward Shishkin
2010-06-22 14:12                 ` Edward Shishkin
2010-06-22 14:12                   ` Edward Shishkin
2010-06-22 14:20                   ` Chris Mason
2010-06-23 13:46                     ` Edward Shishkin
2010-06-23 13:46                       ` Edward Shishkin
2010-06-23 23:37                       ` Jamie Lokier
2010-06-24 13:06                         ` Chris Mason
2010-06-30 20:05                           ` Edward Shishkin
2010-06-30 20:05                           ` Edward Shishkin
2010-06-30 20:05                             ` Edward Shishkin
2010-06-30 21:12                             ` Chris Mason
2010-06-30 20:05                           ` Edward Shishkin
2010-06-23 13:46                     ` Edward Shishkin
2010-07-09  4:16                 ` Chris Samuel
2010-07-09 20:30                   ` Chris Mason
2010-06-23 23:57         ` Btrfs: broken file system design (was Unbound(?) internal fragmentation in Btrfs) Jamie Lokier

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4C25EAC4.1040909@redhat.com \
    --to=rwheeler@redhat.com \
    --cc=Daniel.Taylor@wdc.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
    --cc=daniel.blueman@gmail.com \
    --cc=jackdachef@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mfedyk@mikefedyk.com \
    --cc=mjt@tls.msk.ru \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.