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@xxxxxxx> 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
