Hacker News Reader

Comment by louwrentius | Hacker News Reader

I was not even aware of this possibility, thanks for explaining it to me.

The concept fills with me with absolute horror though. Losing a part of my files is as bad as losing everything.

The performance benefit with larger files of RAID1 vs RAID5/6 can be very 'substantial'. Even my old 18 TB NAS could achieve 1+ GB/s on sequential reads.

View on HN

RAID5/6+ is only as fast as your slowest disk, and seek times are no better. In most respects, mirroring gets you better performance, and for most drive configurations, is more reliable than RAID5. Massive throughput on single files one at a time is not interesting to most people with big storage requirements.

I currently run RAID6 (raidz2) across 10 drives. But I'll be moving to RAID10 before long. Whether using zfs or not, depends on btrfs stability.

RAID5/6 is only as fast as the slowes disk regarding ZFS yes if you talk about random IOPS. BTRFS performance I haven't measured yet.

RAID5/6 random IOPS can be quite good or as you can expect if you use MDADM.

The best solution seems to be tons of RAM for caching and ZFS with SSD SLOG if you need reliable and fast sync writes. But with ZFS, performance comes second over reliability.

RAID isn't backup. Losing some of your files instead of all your files means you have access to some of the files during the restore window. And your restore might be quicker?

But how do you even fire up an Oracle database with some of the dbf files missing? And I can't think of any other application (other than maybe a document storage system) that would be useful with some of the files missing.

You don't. You rsync the missing files over and skip the data that is already present, saving time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com