From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2CCBC07E9A for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 12:36:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DA06613B2 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 12:36:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231288AbhGNMix (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2021 08:38:53 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35106 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231226AbhGNMix (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2021 08:38:53 -0400 Received: from mail-yb1-xb2e.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A2BFC06175F for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 05:36:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yb1-xb2e.google.com with SMTP id y38so2924940ybi.1 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 05:36:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6Jadq2eY89u2XALiGk1q5HW5jRWVAq6ct+OiU9qoR+A=; b=QuRKodW2ZDi6IxIsOaFTDFjnZELEfAFXLUHwKEEo/Hfp/5022Ti4ttTk/QcLETyXdg Ck12rhLpfYzJN9EoWkTYRosYitNDxAcW+Y4rAQAQhzITzYgFhcw4Xx5zUhiu3mNDU5ks /Vp9axZFCk+v/EXovI01r4K+kq0sXE2GkFR+Lt6lnTiN4mcYFxuxZk5yLHh95BYOIPjx VYWeNhu24JF6NRc0Q87l6BmKyQ6isLGRQoYI8f9rfrIQSsUHiQoiV/RY9hbWHZJUweKq EXMO48txsa0RnQe3JW4pewhRgJOedc9gqiCdsbZqZkSH2k56SzvizoC4nXkZLd3nx8fN H4ig== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6Jadq2eY89u2XALiGk1q5HW5jRWVAq6ct+OiU9qoR+A=; b=cUlyV9GTDGecUQc5AU31WXz1H2J+pSm5yFqd3ZBTAWl59PIFCrt7v2f+KHF46rgZoZ v/PeX+HbT2zvji2Z6eAi0QS0ZxvQi1aF5r6BN2M/wkg3FnkBgBtcXwaoxfnt2se47PfU HZNJGS14fCL/d+glxRmxWG4oeNiozxLMTExz222wFjL6mKoDTguNVRsyV4h1kwoLdHQ2 rm0WggT4SwG5Jt3xHV/L5fHfI0Pggw87Gd56rEu4/lfL6vkNQ2UChpl8Vjg0U+G8A9iR SLgh1kBxjX/BHK4nBgcpQ4sDGgiI0xIqPJ4QjBviykiHUQlrYrl1Pd3sG6QGs8uglOlf AAlg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533JXV9IN6Q+8MFmQaJp5ALb2OZXQhm5U+A7iyDmAL1jx43G3nKY QJI7vw29IITPD/KnkMUjta5D2lhhD0cVn1Ku/WA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwrnLwZ2keoZHU4ZK9St1VTlCR8msRS8Da6L7ckIhx63G7NyajsyLnFCYlDJdU3/Qe6K2qndxZC7QmadIUDD5U= X-Received: by 2002:a25:7786:: with SMTP id s128mr13132136ybc.354.1626266161164; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 05:36:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2a29adba-8451-7550-a6f1-835be431953b@gmx.com> <762a5060-e38d-ccef-293d-c05389d5b0af@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <762a5060-e38d-ccef-293d-c05389d5b0af@gmail.com> From: Neal Gompa Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 08:35:25 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Enhancement Idea - Optional PGO+LTO build for btrfs-progs To: DanglingPointer Cc: Qu Wenruo , Btrfs BTRFS , Damien Le Moal Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 5:22 AM DanglingPointer wrote: > > Yes noted. > > We're aware of the write hole risk. We have battery backup for both > workstations and automation to shut it down in the event of power-outage. > > Also they are lab workstations. Not production. Data is backed up to > two locations. > > The primary reason for RAID5 (or 6) is economics. Money goes way > further with RAID5 compared to other RAIDs (1,/10,etc) for the amount of > data store-able in an array with the reliability of being able to loose > a disk. I'm sure there are thousands of others out there in a similar > situation to me where economics are tight. > > Would be good if at some point RAID56 can be looked on and fixed and > further optimised so it can be declared stable. Thousands of people > would further flock to btrfs, especially small medium enterprises, orgs, > charities, home users, schools and labs. > Btrfs RAID 5/6 code is being worked on[1], so this will be fixed eventually. I personally look forward to this being resolved as well... [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/BL0PR04MB65144CAE288491C3FC6B0757E= 7489@BL0PR04MB6514.namprd04.prod.outlook.com/ --=20 =E7=9C=9F=E5=AE=9F=E3=81=AF=E3=81=84=E3=81=A4=E3=82=82=E4=B8=80=E3=81=A4=EF= =BC=81/ Always, there's only one truth!