default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification
Chris Murphy
lists at colorremedies.com
Sun Mar 2 00:36:46 UTC 2014
On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
>
>
> Am 02.03.2014 00:42, schrieb Chris Murphy:
>>
>> On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:29:30PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>>>> - There needs to be a mandate to remove features from custom partitioning
>>>>> that quite frankly don't make sense like rootfs on raid4, raid5 or
>>>>> raid6. OK maybe raid5. But not raid 4 or raid 6. There are other
>>>>
>>>> Okay, I'll bite. Why not rootfs on raid6?
>>>
>>> It's pathological. 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.
>>
>> Those three examples are simpler, more resilient, easier to configure and maintain, perform better, with faster rebuild times than RAID 6 which also has a high read-modify-write penalty. I left that part out.
>
> yes, but RAID6 allows a disk-fault *while* rebuild the RAID after the first one
> RADID 10 *may* do the same if the *right* second disk fails
If you need two disk failure tolerance use n-way mirroring with three disks, anaconda supports this.
Chris Murphy
More information about the devel
mailing list