Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes! I actually gave up on the one drive. It was a torrent disk (like I said worst case scenario for a lot of things) and btrfs ate itself lol.
To be fair, it didn't break or lose data. Just got really, really slow until I let it finish reclaiming space.
Btrfs in Linux 6.2 brings performance improvements, better RAID 5/6 reliability
111–120 of 231 posts
Re: Btrfs in Linux 6.2 brings performance improvements, better RAID 5/6 reliability
#112But is the RAID handling remotely sane yet? See https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/examining-btrfs-linu... It has gems such as: * It won't boot on a degraded array by default, requiring manual action to mount it * It won't complain if one of the disks is stale * It won't resilver automatically if a disk is re-added to the array I think the first is the killer. RAID is a High Availability measure. Your system is…
Many folks I know who manage storage don't make the boot volume RAID (redundant)- instead, it's some rapidly duplicatable thing like an NMVE flash containing the root filesystem, and there's a replacement handy. Then you can bring up and bring the full power of userspace to bear on the RAID repair.
Re: Btrfs in Linux 6.2 brings performance improvements, better RAID 5/6 reliability
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many folks I know who manage storage don't make the boot volume RAID (redundant)- instead, it's some rapidly duplicatable thing like an NMVE flash containing the root filesystem, and there's a replacement handy. Then you can bring up and bring the full power of userspace to bear on the RAID repair.
Plain old USB thumb drives are pretty common for this I can't knock it, but I imagine I'd be yelling for at least RAID1 if I had to wait for a replacement.
Re: Btrfs in Linux 6.2 brings performance improvements, better RAID 5/6 reliability
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't quite understand the use case here. If I'm setting up RAID it's because I want the system to stay up. That's the only purpose for it. If a device goes missing for "unknown reasons", then the machine should still work, and I'll figure out what happened when monitoring pokes me and says RAID is degraded.
> That's the only purpose for it. That's not the only purpose for it. There's three reasons I can think of that you might set up a RAID array: * You want better uptime. (your use case) * You want to protect from data loss. (my assumption was that this is the most common use case, but I could be wrong. This also helps with uptime because there's nothing worse for uptime than having to restore lost data from a cold bac…
Re: Btrfs in Linux 6.2 brings performance improvements, better RAID 5/6 reliability
#115Re: Btrfs in Linux 6.2 brings performance improvements, better RAID 5/6 reliability
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only thing it's missing before I consider it full-featured is stable RAID 5/6. But it looks like that hasn't been forgotten. I've been running BTRFS RAID6 since 2016 and have only had one issue (arch kernel needed to be rolled back) and never suffered anything catastrophic. It's perfectly happy humming along with a 15x8TB raid array.
Are you using Raid6 for both data and metadata? If yes, you could just as well have been running raid 0 and having more space and performance out of the same disks. Because of well documented issues, metadata on raid6 is not yet safe in power/hw failure situations. And if you have no safety in those situations, what is raid even for? (It's perfectly safe to run metadata on raid1 and data on raid5/6.)
Re: Btrfs in Linux 6.2 brings performance improvements, better RAID 5/6 reliability
#117But is the RAID handling remotely sane yet? See https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/examining-btrfs-linu... It has gems such as: * It won't boot on a degraded array by default, requiring manual action to mount it * It won't complain if one of the disks is stale * It won't resilver automatically if a disk is re-added to the array I think the first is the killer. RAID is a High Availability measure. Your system is…
Regarding resilvering, I am amazed by ZFS' capability of quickly bringing a stale mirror back into synchronization. I have used the FUSE port of ZFS to write only one member of a mirroset, then upon mounting both members elsewhere, the stale mirror was very quickly resilvered, so ZFS was able to determine only the blocks needing to be refreshed. In btrfs, I understand that this requires a rebalance, which will read/w…
Re: Btrfs in Linux 6.2 brings performance improvements, better RAID 5/6 reliability
#118But is the RAID handling remotely sane yet? See https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/examining-btrfs-linu... It has gems such as: * It won't boot on a degraded array by default, requiring manual action to mount it * It won't complain if one of the disks is stale * It won't resilver automatically if a disk is re-added to the array I think the first is the killer. RAID is a High Availability measure. Your system is…
> * It won't boot on a degraded array by default, requiring manual action to mount it That by itself is a complete deal breaker.
Re: Btrfs in Linux 6.2 brings performance improvements, better RAID 5/6 reliability
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only time I've lost data with zfs was when i was first doing something supremely stupid, mostly as a dare to see if it would work. I had recently upgraded my pool and had a bunch of old disks lying around so i fired them up in a new pool, 6x 4TB and 6x 8TB disks. I took the 4TB disks and set them in in a raid0 to get effectively 9x 8TB disks. Apparently doing this will work but you MUST make sure you properly wipe al…
Is there a zfs native way to create raid0 disks now? On Linux I usually set up a linear mapping with dmsetup, and then point zfs to that. But this hides the native disks from zfs. I've done that a couple times to make a bunch of mismatched disk fit into zfs's requirement that all are of the same size. The ability to work with a mix of disk sizes is one advantage of btrfs - if you remember to be extra careful on a dis…
zpool create swimming disk1 disk2 …
That has worked for over 15 years.
Re: Btrfs in Linux 6.2 brings performance improvements, better RAID 5/6 reliability
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
My experience with hardware RAID cards (LSI, PERC, etc) is vastly different than the recommendations you heard. I have been running production servers with LSI hardware RAID cards for the past 15 years and have not experienced the items you note. The only thing I did experience was a bad RAID card (solved by replacing it with a similar LSI model). To contrast your "problem" list: * Compared with MDADM (mirrors, RAID-…
Glad it's worked for you. I don't think I've had anything that conflicts with your experiences. I didn't mean to imply a degraded hardware RAID wouldn't mount, I think that's a BTRFS RAID5 issue. Generally I'd consider BTRFS a toy, doubly so for RAID5/6 on BTRFS. Generally I (and colleagues) consider a hardware RAID failure a nightmare and a SAS HBA failure an annoyance. Doubly so if your storage design included cros…
Thus far, we don't have any high-density NVMe servers so I can't really test high-end servers. My experience is limited to 8x SSDs or 16x spinning drives in our arrays.
Finally, I avoided ZFS for a long time as well. Early on (OpenZFS 0.6, 0.7, etc), I spent an enormous amount of time trying to tweak/tune the system just to get on par with our HW RAID devices. No matter what I did, I simply could not get the server (typical Linux NFS NAS) to get any decent performance. In fact, I clearly remember HW RAID hitting 1.8GB/sec on our SSDs while OpenZFS could only get around 400MB/sec. Only until OpenZFS 2.1 mark did I see any real performance gains.
...Speaking of ZFS... I recently worked on a project to replace XFS with ZFS for Postgresql servers. I learned a lot about OpenZFS - specifically the memory latency when using compression. I had a lengthy discussion with the OpenZFS "gang" (https://zfsonlinux.topicbox.com/groups/zfs-discuss/T5122ffd3...) to identify some large latency numbers. Turns out, you need to disable ARC compression and "ADB Scatter Enabled" otherwise you will definitely hit some performance issues. Take a look at that thread - especially the very end where I publish some tuning suggestions. It was a fun learning exercise :-)