41–50 of 52 posts
no afp support?
Since Apple has supported SMB for a long time, and actually made it the default protocol in 10.9, is there much need for AFP?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The non-recoverable bit error rate spec. NetApp tracks it with their Nearstore product line which used SATA drives in a NAS box (they have been for a while actually, when I left they had data on about 65 million drive hours) and while Seagate quotes it a 1x10^15 bits but its actually closer to 5 in 10^15 bits. A 3TB drive has 3x10^13 bits of data (closer to 3x10^14 when you account for track markers and error recover…
3TB is 3 10^12 bytes assuming the decimal bytes used in the storage industry. The uncorrectable bit error rate is for the raw block storage. It does not include the low level formatting, which is no more than 20% of the storage on 512-byte sector drives and less than 10% on advanced format drives. The probability of an uncorrectable bit error when copying 3TB using decimal bytes) is approximately 1.5% under the assum…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
3TB is 3 10^12 bytes assuming the decimal bytes used in the storage industry. The uncorrectable bit error rate is for the raw block storage. It does not include the low level formatting, which is no more than 20% of the storage on 512-byte sector drives and less than 10% on advanced format drives. The probability of an uncorrectable bit error when copying 3TB using decimal bytes) is approximately 1.5% under the assum…
Just to be clear, I meant 3 * 10^12, not 310^12. The arithmetic that I posted uses the correct number.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But lacking raid5/6, even N-way mirrors. ZFS is not perfect, but btrfs is not even close in terms of features.
Btrfs does support raid5/6, I'm using it right now. It is still being refined and has a couple rough edges, but I haven't had any problems in the year or so I've been using it. It is not "production ready" yet for sure, but the support is there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The non-recoverable bit error rate spec. NetApp tracks it with their Nearstore product line which used SATA drives in a NAS box (they have been for a while actually, when I left they had data on about 65 million drive hours) and while Seagate quotes it a 1x10^15 bits but its actually closer to 5 in 10^15 bits. A 3TB drive has 3x10^13 bits of data (closer to 3x10^14 when you account for track markers and error recover…
3TB is 3 10^12 bytes assuming the decimal bytes used in the storage industry. The uncorrectable bit error rate is for the raw block storage. It does not include the low level formatting, which is no more than 20% of the storage on 512-byte sector drives and less than 10% on advanced format drives. The probability of an uncorrectable bit error when copying 3TB using decimal bytes) is approximately 1.5% under the assum…
the gui looks pretty cool. personally i would not trust btrfs for a nas. i have made not the best experience while running various production servers with btrfs. i switched (back) to zfs and never looked back, it its just better in every regard. i also administer a freenas box for a small business and this stuff is rock solid, i would only wish a _easy_ solution to get the permission stuff right in a multi user setti…
I'm in the process to rolling out btrfs on a lot of production servers (no raid, just subvolumes and compression) using Ubuntu 14.04 - what problems did you encounter with btrfs?
Be prepared to update your kernels and tools often and independent of your vendor. Btrfs-progs will likely need to come from the git repo, so building your own packages for distribution around your production nodes will probably be necessary too.
A word of caution: do not run btrfsck without consulting the wiki and mailing list first, and hopefully knowing exactly what you are doing. There are situations you'll encounter which do not require btrfsck to repair (but rather, other tools instead), and it will potentially make a recovery less likely.
FWIW, I have been watching the list for years, and reading regularly for about 6 months trying to get a sense of stability with respect to the features I want.
I would not put btrfs in production yet. Though, likely soon.. I'd guess another year or so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm in the process to rolling out btrfs on a lot of production servers (no raid, just subvolumes and compression) using Ubuntu 14.04 - what problems did you encounter with btrfs?
If you don't already, I strongly recommend lurking on the btrfs mailing list. There are regular fixes to balancing, ENOSPC, send/receive and the btrfs-progs tools; occasional questions and fixes related to the compression code. Be prepared to update your kernels and tools often and independent of your vendor. Btrfs-progs will likely need to come from the git repo, so building your own packages for distribution around…
New kernels should be no problem as Ubuntu will likely provide an HWE stack in the future and btrfs-tools is inside a well maintained ppa...
Damn' I should have pushed ZoL through.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you and appreciate your issue submission on github. We'll fix this right away.
It's still there.
We changed the key in our live demo, but for our users we'll roll out the fix in the next update. As part of that fix, we'll also remove the key file from git.
I think that's a reasonable plan. Hope I am not missing something.