<p dir="ltr"><br>
On 7 Oct 2014 16:05, "Gerald B. Cox" <<a href="mailto:gbcox@bzb.us">gbcox@bzb.us</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Gene Czarcinski <<a href="mailto:gczarcinski@gmail.com">gczarcinski@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> However, there are some things that could be done to make it easier for those of us who want to make it easier to install Fedora onto a btrfs filesystem.<br>
>><br>
>> My point was that unless and until there is more support for BTRFS by members of the Fedora Project, btrfs cannot be made the default. That is, IF it makes sense to have it be the default.<br>
><br>
><br>
> That is a good point. I've been using BTRFS Raid 6 across 6 1TB drives for over a year now with (knock on wood) no issues. I did this because of the simplicity of setting up RAID under BTRFS and for me at least that is the biggest attraction. Maybe I'm mistaken, but there almost seemed (and still is, IMO) an active discouragement for people to use this configuration. You're not going to attract people to use and test something if you simultaneously tell them it is toxic. Also, you can't jump from don't use it, it isn't safe to ok, let's make it the system default. <br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">In case you are unaware this is a terrible idea for any data you care about at this point as scrubs don't work for raid5/6 right now and replacing a lost drive as a result is ... Finicky at best.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Essentially for all intents raid 5/6 is as safe as raid0 and super experimental without the benefit of a working scrub on raid0 at present ...</p>
<p dir="ltr">Any data you care about on btrfs must be raid1 or raid10 depending on the number of drives (with metadata and system set to raid1).<br>
</p>