Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Okay, I'll bite. Why not rootfs on raid6? > It's pathological. Sick? Non-functional? Unlucky? > There are too many simpler, faster, more resilient options > considering rootfs at most isn't bigger than the average SSD: Two or > three SSDs + n-way mirroring. RAID 10. Or RAID 1 > + linear + XFS for deterministic workloads. Doesn't the size argument assume that some drives are set aside for rootfs only? Otherwise, it's reasonable to apply the same raid5/6 trade-offs to rootfs as to the other data on a shared pool of drives. - FChE -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
