DevHeads.net

Re: [CentOS] Btrfs going forward, was: Errors on an SSD drive

Changing the subject since this is rather Btrfs specific now.

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:41 AM, hw <hw@gc-24.de> wrote:
Yes.

The block layer has no faulty device handling, i.e. it just reports
whatever problems the device or the controller report. Where md/mdadm
and md/LVM have implemented policies for ejecting (setting a device to
faulty) a block device. Btrfs does not do that, it'll just keep trying
to use a faulty device.

So you have to setup something that monitors for either physical
device errors, or btrfs errors or both, depending on what you want.

There's 1500 to 3000 line changes to Btrfs code per kernel release.
There's too much to backport most of it. Serious fixes do get
backported by upstream to longterm kernels, but to what degree, you
have to check the upstream changelogs to know about it.

And right now most backports go to only 4.4 and 4.9. And I can't tell
you what kernel-3.10.0-514.10.2.el7.x86_64.rpm translates into, that
requires a secret decoder ring near as I can tell as it's a kernel
made from multiple branches, and then also a bunch of separate
patches.

Red Hat are working on a new user space wrapper and volume format
based on md, device mapper, LVM, and XFS.
<a href="http://stratis-storage.github.io/" title="http://stratis-storage.github.io/">http://stratis-storage.github.io/</a>
<a href="https://stratis-storage.github.io/StratisSoftwareDesign.pdf" title="https://stratis-storage.github.io/StratisSoftwareDesign.pdf">https://stratis-storage.github.io/StratisSoftwareDesign.pdf</a>

It's an aggressive development schedule and as so much of it is
journaling and CoW based I have no way to assess whether it ends up
with its own set of problems, not dissimilar to Btrfs. We'll just have
to see. But if there are underlying guts in the device-mapper that do
things better/faster/easier than Btrfs, the Btrfs devs have said they
can hook into device-mapper for these things to consolidate code base,
in particular for the multiple device handling. By its own vague time
table it will be years before it has "rough ZFS features" and again
estimating bootloader support, and to what degree other distros pick
up on it, it very well could end up being widely adopted, or it could
be a Red Hat only thing in practice.

Canonical appears to be charging ahead with OpenZFS included by
default out of the box (although not for rootfs yet I guess), and that
has an open ended and possibly long window before legal issues get
tested. But this is by far the most cross platform solution: FreeBSD,
Illumos, Linux, macOS. And ZoL has RHEL/CentOS specific packages.

But I can't tell you for sure what ZoL's faulty device behavior is
either, whether it ejects faulty or flaky devices and when, or if like
Btrfs is just tolerates it.

The elrepo.org folks can still sanely set CONFIG_BTRFS_FS=m, but I
suspect if RHEL unsets that in RHEL 8 kernels, that CentOS will do the
same.

Comments

Re: Btrfs going forward, was: Errors on an SSD drive

By Warren Young at 08/11/2017 - 14:12

On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:00 AM, Chris Murphy < ... at colorremedies dot com> wrote:
That is one of the open questions about Stratis: should its stratisd act in the place of smartd?

Vote and comment on its GitHub issue here:

<a href="https://github.com/stratis-storage/stratisd/issues/72" title="https://github.com/stratis-storage/stratisd/issues/72">https://github.com/stratis-storage/stratisd/issues/72</a>

I’m in favor of it. The daemon had to be there anyway, it makes sense to push SMART failure indicators up through the block layer into the volume manager layer so it can react intelligently to the failure, and FreeBSD’s ZFS is getting such a daemon soon so we want one, too:

<a href="https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&amp;px=ZFSD-For-FreeBSD" title="https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&amp;px=ZFSD-For-FreeBSD">https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&amp;px=ZFSD-For-FreeBSD</a>

I rather doubt btrfs will be compiled out of the kernel in EL8, and even if it is, it’ll probably be in the CentOSPlus kernels.

What you *won’t* get from Red Hat is the ability to install EL8 onto a btrfs volume from within Anaconda, the btrfs tools won’t be installed by default, and if you have a Red Hat subscription, they won’t be all that willing to help you with btrfs-related problems.

But will you be able to install EL8 onto an existing XFS-formatted boot volume and mount your old btrfs data volume? I guess “yes.”

I suspect you’ll even be able to manually create new btrfs data volumes in EL8.

openSUSE defaults to btrfs on root, though XFS on /home for some reason:

<a href="https://goo.gl/Hiuzbu" title="https://goo.gl/Hiuzbu">https://goo.gl/Hiuzbu</a>

Stratis: <a href="https://stratis-storage.github.io/StratisSoftwareDesign.pdf" title="https://stratis-storage.github.io/StratisSoftwareDesign.pdf">https://stratis-storage.github.io/StratisSoftwareDesign.pdf</a>

The main downside to Stratis I see is that it looks like 1.0 is scheduled to coincide with RHEL 8, based on the release dates of RHELs past, which means it won’t have any kind of redundant storage options to begin with, not even RAID-1, the only meaningful RAID level when it comes to comparing against btrfs.

The claim is that “enterprise” users don’t want software RAID anyway, so they don’t need to provide it in whatever version of Stratis ships with EL 8. I think my reply to that holds true for many of us CentOS users:

<a href="https://github.com/stratis-storage/stratis-docs/issues/54" title="https://github.com/stratis-storage/stratis-docs/issues/54">https://github.com/stratis-storage/stratis-docs/issues/54</a>

Ah well, my company has historically been skipping even-numbered RHEL releases anyway due to lack of compelling reasons to migrate from the prior odd-numbered release still being supported. Maybe Stratis will be ready for prime time by the time EL9 ships.

The Red Hat/Fedora developers are well aware that they started out ~7 years behind when they pushed btrfs forward as a “technology preview” with RHEL 6, and are now more like 12 years behind the ZFS world after waiting in vain for btrfs to catch up.

Basically, Stratis is their plan to catch up on the cheap, building atop existing, tested infrastructure already in Linux.

My biggest worry is that because it’s not integrated top-to-bottom like ZFS is, they’ll miss out on some of the key advantages you have with ZFS.

I’m all for making the current near-manual LVM2 + MD + DM + XFS lash-up more integrated and automated, even if it’s just a pretty face in front of those same components. The question is how well that interface mimics the end user experience of ZFS, which in my mind still provides the best CLI experience, even if you compare only on features they share in common. btrfs’ tools are close, but I guess the correct command much more often with ZFS’ tools.

That latter is an explicit goal of the Stratis project. They know that filesystem maintenance is not a daily task for most of us, so that we tend to forget commands, since we haven’t used them in months. It is a major feature of a filesystem to have commands you can guess correctly based on fuzzy memories of having used them once months ago.

Correct. ZFS-on-root-on-Ubuntu is still an unholy mess:

<a href="https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/wiki/Ubuntu" title="https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/wiki/Ubuntu">https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/wiki/Ubuntu</a>

Lacking something like zfsd, I’d guess it just tolerates it, and that you need to pair it with smartd to have notification of failing devices. You could script that to have automatic spare replacement.

Or, port FreeBSD’s zfsd over.

Re: Btrfs going forward, was: Errors on an SSD drive

By Chris Murphy at 08/11/2017 - 20:20

<a href="https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/7.4_Release_Notes/chap-Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux-7.4_Release_Notes-Deprecated_Functionality.html" title="https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/7.4_Release_Notes/chap-Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux-7.4_Release_Notes-Deprecated_Functionality.html">https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7...</a>

"Red Hat will not be moving Btrfs to a fully supported feature and it
will be removed in a future major release of Red Hat Enterprise
Linux."

Unless the EL8 kernel is based on a regularly maintained (by Btrfs
upstream) longterm kernel such as 4.9 at the oldest, then it's way too
much work to backport Btrfs fixes to older kernels. Red Hat is clearly
saying they're removing it. And I expect CentOS won't have the
resources to do this work either. Either they get it for free from
upstream by using an longterm kernel, or gets removed.

But we'll just have to see I guess.

All I can say is that Fedora is keeping it and still has high hope for
Btrfs users, experts, contributors, developers, etc. That's in
Fedora's interest.

I guess no, based on the word "removed"

Well they have no upstream Btrfs developers. SUSE has around a dozen.
Big difference. And then Red Hat has probably at least a dozen
developers involved in md, device-mapper, LVM, and XFS. So it makes
sense if they are hedging their bets, they're going to go with what
they already have resources in.

Also, I see it as tacit acknowledgement that Btrfs is stable enough
that it's silly to call it a technology preview, but not so stable
they can just assume it will work on its own without having
knowledgeable support staff and developers on hand, which they don't.
So it seems to me they pretty much had to cut off Btrfs, but I don't
know if this was a technical decision or if it was a recruiting
problem or some combination.

It always comes down to edge cases. XFS folks are adding in CoW for
reflinks, which Btrfs has had stable for years, practically from the
very beginning, and they have had plenty of problems with mainly one
developer working on it, it's not a default feature yet. LVM thin
provisioning likewise uses CoW, they've had plenty of problems with
fragmentation that are not all that different from the user experience
anyway, than when Btrfs experiences massive free space fragmentation.
So... these are really hard problems to fix and I think people really
do underestimate still the brilliance of the ZFS development team and
the hands free approach they were given for development.

And then I also think we don't recognize how lucky we are in free
software to have so many options to address myriad workloads and use
cases. Yes it's tedious to have so many choices rather than a magic
unicorn file system that's one size fits all. But I think we're more
lucky than we are cursed.

Yeah and frankly a really constrained feature set that doesn't account
for literally everything. LVM's fatal flaw in my view is as an
anaconda dev once put it, it's emacs for storage. It's a bottomless
rabbit hole. Badass, but it's just a massive "choose your own
adventure" book.

Btrfs isn't magic but it does do a lot of things really right in terms of Ux.

'btrfs device add'
'btrfs device delete'

That does file system resize, including moving extents if necessary in
the delete case, and it removes the device from the volume/array and
wipes the signature from the device. Resize is always online, atomic,
and in theory crash proof. There's also the seldom discussed seed
device / overlay feature, useful for live media that's substantially
simpler to implement and understand compared to dm - and it's also
much more reliable. The dm solution we currently have for lives will
eventually blow up without warning when it gets full and the overlay
is toast.
<a href="https://github.com/kdave/btrfs-wiki/wiki/Seed-device" title="https://github.com/kdave/btrfs-wiki/wiki/Seed-device">https://github.com/kdave/btrfs-wiki/wiki/Seed-device</a>

Re: Btrfs going forward, was: Errors on an SSD drive

By hw at 08/11/2017 - 14:39

Can I use that now?

Redundancy is required.

How do you install on an XFS that is adjusted to the stripe size and the number of
units when using hardware RAID? I tried that, without success.

What if you want to use SSDs to install the system on? That usually puts hardware
RAID of the question.

That leaves them unable to overcome the disadvantages of hardware RAID.
I don´t want the performance penalty MD brings about even as a home user.
Same goes for ZFS. I can´t tell yet how the penalty looks with btrfs,
only that I haven´t noticed any yet.

And that brings back the question why nobody makes a hardware ZFS controller.
Enterprise users would probably love that, provided that the performance issues
could be resolved.

I´m more for getting rid of it. Just try to copy a LV into another VG, especially
when the VG resides on different devices. Or try to make a snapshot in another VG
because the devices the source of the snapshot resides on don´t have enough free
space.

LVM lacks so much flexibility that it is more a cumbersome burdon than anything else.
I have lost a whole VM when I tried to copy it, thanks to LVM. It was so complicated
that the LV somehow vanished, and I still don´t know what happened. No more LVM.

Re: Btrfs going forward, was: Errors on an SSD drive

By Chris Adams at 08/11/2017 - 14:58

Once upon a time, hw <hw@gc-24.de> said:
You have to use a kickstart - that's always been the answer if you want
to customize features of the root filesystem (or anything underlying it
like LVM).

Can you actually cite a performance penalty (with modern hardware)?

Re: Btrfs going forward, was: Errors on an SSD drive

By Warren Young at 08/11/2017 - 14:56

On Aug 11, 2017, at 12:39 PM, hw <hw@gc-24.de> wrote:
As I said, they’re targeting the first testable releases for Fedora 28. Whether, how, and on what schedule Stratis gets into RHEL will be based on how well those tests go.

So, if you want Stratis in RHEL or CentOS and you want it to be awesome, you need to get involved with Fedora. Wishes are not changes.

That’s one of many reasons why you want to use software RAID if at all possible. Software RAID makes many things easier than with hardware RAID.

Hardware RAID made the most sense when motherboards came with only 2 PATA ports and CPUs were single-core and calculated parity at double-digit percentages of the CPU’s capacity. Over time, the advantages of hardware RAID have been eroded greatly.

SSD and other caching layers are explicitly part of the Stratis design, but won’t be in its first versions.

Go read the white paper.

You keep saying that. [citation needed]

You want data checksumming and 3+ copies of metadata and copy-on-write and… but it all has to come for free?

<a href="https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&amp;item=linux_317_4ssd&amp;num=2" title="https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&amp;item=linux_317_4ssd&amp;num=2">https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&amp;item=linux_317_4ssd&amp;num=2</a>

They do. It’s called an Intel Xeon. :)

All RAID is software, at some level.

Enterprise users *do* have hardware ZFS appliances:

<a href="https://www.ixsystems.com/truenas/" title="https://www.ixsystems.com/truenas/">https://www.ixsystems.com/truenas/</a>
<a href="https://nexenta.com/products/nexentastor" title="https://nexenta.com/products/nexentastor">https://nexenta.com/products/nexentastor</a>

These are FreeBSD and Illumos-based ZFS storage appliances, respectively, with all the enterprisey features you could want, and they’re priced accordingly.

ZFS send/receive makes that pretty easy. You can even do it incrementally by coupling it with snapshots. It’s fast enough that people use this to set up failover servers.

I don’t think any volume managing filesystem will fix that problem. Not enough space is not enough space.

I think the best answer to that provided by ZFS is, “Why do you have more than one pool?” Not a great answer, but it should at least make you re-justify your current storage design to yourself.

Re: Btrfs going forward, was: Errors on an SSD drive

By hw at 08/11/2017 - 13:37

Chris Murphy wrote:
I want to know when a drive has failed. How can I monitor that? I´ve begun
to use btrfs only recently.

So these kernels are a mess. What´s the point of backports when they aren´t
done correctly?

This puts a big stamp "stay away from" on RHEL/Centos.

So in another 15 or 20 years, some kind of RH file system might become
usable.

I´d say the need to wake up because the need for features provided by ZFS
and btrfs already exists since years. Even their current XFS implementation
is flawed because there is no way to install on an XFS that is adjusted to
the volume of the hardware RAID the XFS is created on as it is supposed to
be.

That can be an advantage.

What is the state of ZFS for Centos? I´m going to need it because I have
data on some disks that were used for ZFS and now need to be read by a
machine running Centos.

Does it require a particular kernel version?

You can monitor the disks and see when one has failed.

Sanely? With the kernel being such a mess?

Re: Btrfs going forward, was: Errors on an SSD drive

By Chris Murphy at 08/11/2017 - 18:45

Maybe checkout epylog and have it monitor for BTRFS messages. That's
your earliest warning because Btrfs will complain with any csum
mismatch even if the hardware is not reporting problems. For impending
drive failures, still your best bet is smartd even though the stats
are that it only predicts drive failures maybe 60% of the time.

*sigh* Can we try to act rationally instead of emotionally?
Backporting is fucking hard. Have you bothered to look at kernel code
and how backporting is done? Or do you just assume that it's like
microwaving a hot pocket or something trivial? If it were easy, it
would be automated. It's not easy. A human has to look at the new
code, new fixes for old problems, and they have to graft it on old
ways of doing it and very often the new code does not cleanly apply to
old kernels. It's just a fact. And now that person has to come up with
a fix with old methods. That's a backport.

It is only messy to an outside observer, which includes me. People who
are doing the work at Red Hat very clearly understand it, the whole
point is to have a thoroughly understood stable conservative kernel.
They're very picky about taking on new features which tends to include
new regressions.

You have to pick your battles is what it comes down to. It is
completely legitimate to CentOS for stability elsewhere, and use a
nearly upstream kernel from elrepo.org or Fedora.

Of hand I'm not sure who is building CentOS compatible kernel packages
based on upstream longterm. A really good compromise right now is the
4.9 series, so if someone has a 4.9.42 kernel somewhere that'd be
neat. It's not difficult to build yourself either for that matter. I
can't advise you with Nvidia stuff though.

Lovely more hyperbole...

Read the document. It talks about an initial production quality
release 1st half of next year. It admits they're behind, *and* it also
says they can't wait 10 more years. So maybe 3? Maybe 5? I have no
idea. File systems are hard. Backups are good.

Well, not to be a jerk but RTFM:
<a href="http://zfsonlinux.org/" title="http://zfsonlinux.org/">http://zfsonlinux.org/</a>

It's like - I can't answer your question without reading it myself. So
there you go. I think it's DKMS based, so it has some kernel
dependencies but I think it's quite a bit more tolerant of different
kernel versions while maintain the same relative ZFS feature/bug set
for that particular release - basically it's decoupled from Linux.

That doesn't tell me anything about how it differs from anything else.
mdadm offers email notifications as an option; LVM has its own
notification system I haven't really looked at but I don't think it
including email notifications; smartd can do emails but also dumps
standard messages to dmesg.

I don't speak for elrepo I have no idea how their config option
differs from RHEL or CentOS. But I do know elrepo offers stable
upstream kernels very soon after kernel.org posts them. It seems
completely reasonable to me for them to include the Btrfs module. If
there's a big regression that bites people in the ass, you can rest
assured you will not be the only person pissed off. Btrfs has been
really good about few regressions in the kernel for a few years now.
The maintainers are running a bunch of the more risky patches for
months, and sometimes even once in mainline kernel they aren't the
default (for example the v2 space cache has been in the kernel since
4.5, but is still not the default in 4.13).

Re: Btrfs going forward, was: Errors on an SSD drive

By Mark Haney at 08/11/2017 - 13:17

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Chris Murphy < ... at colorremedies dot com>
wrote:

As for a hardware problem, the drives were ones purchased in Lenovo
professional workstation laptops, and, while you do get lemons
occasionally, I tried 4 different ones of the exact same model and had the
exact same issues. Its highly unlikely I'd get 4 of the same brand to have
hardware issues. Once I went back to ext4 on those systems I could run the
devil out of them and not see any freezes under even heavy load, nor any
other hardware related items. In fact, the one I used at my last job was
given to me on my way out and it's now being used by my daughter. It's been
upgraded from Fedora 23 to 26 without a hitch. On ext4. Say what you
want, BTRFS is a very bad filesystem in my experience.

Re: Btrfs going forward, was: Errors on an SSD drive

By Chris Murphy at 08/11/2017 - 18:14

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Mark Haney <mark. ... at neonova dot net> wrote:

Could you get your quoting in proper order? The way you did this looks
like I wrote the above steaming pile rant.

Whoever did write it, it's ridiculous, meaning it's worthy of
ridicule. From the provably unscientific and non-technical, to
craptasticly snotty writing "not to mention the fact" and then
proceeding to mention it. That's just being an idiot, and then framing
it.

Where are your bug reports? That question is a trap if you haven't in
fact filed any bugs, in particular upstream.

In fact it's highly likely because a.) it's a non-scientific sample
and b.) the hardware is intentionally identical. If the firmware is

For SSDs all the sauce is in the firmware. If the model and firmware
were all the same, it is more likely to be a firmware bug than it is
to be a Btrfs bug. There are absolutely cases where Btrfs runs into
problems that other file systems don't, because Btrfs is designed to
detect them and others aren't. There's a reason why XFS and ext4 have
added metadata checksumming in recent versions. Hardware lies.
Firmware has bugs and it causes problems. And it can be months before
it materializes into a noticeable problem.

<a href="https://lwn.net/Articles/698090/" title="https://lwn.net/Articles/698090/">https://lwn.net/Articles/698090/</a>

Btrfs tends to complain early and often when it encounters confusion,
It also will go read only sooner than other file systems in order to
avoid corrupting the file system. Almost always a normal mount will
automatically fallback to the most recent consistent state. Sometimes
it needs to be mounted with -o usebackuproot option. And still in
fewer cases it will need to be mounted read only, where other file
systems won't even tolerate that in the same situation.

The top two complaints I have about Btrfs is a.) what to do when a
normal mount doesn't work, it's really non-obvious what you *should*
do and in what order because there are many specialized tools for
different problems, so if your file system doesn't mount normally you
are really best off going straight to the upstream list and asking for
help, which is sorta shitty but that's the reality; b.) there are
still some minority workloads where users have to micromanage the file
system with a filtered balance to avoid a particular variety of bogus
enospc. Most of the enospc problems are fixed with some changes in
kernel 4.1 and 4.8. The upstream expert users are discussing some sort
of one size fits all user space filtered (meaning partial) balance so
regular users don't have to micromanage. It's completely a legitimate
complaint that having to micromanage a file system is b.s. This has
been a particularly difficult problem, and it's been around for a long
enough time that I think a lot of normal workloads that would have run
into problems have been masked (no problem) because so many users have
gotten into the arguably bad habit of doing their own filtered
balances.

But as for Btrfs having some inherent flaw that results in corrupt
file systems, it's silly. There are thousands of users in many
production workloads using this file system and they'd have given up a
long time ago, including myself.

Read this.
<a href="https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg67308.html" title="https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg67308.html">https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg67308.html</a>

If there was some inherent problem with Btrfs and SSDs, as you've
asserted, that wouldn't be possible. And that's an example with quota
support enabled, that's my big surprise. There are some performance
implications with Btrfs quotas, and it's a relatively new feature, but
that is a very good report.

Re: Btrfs going forward, was: Errors on an SSD drive

By hw at 08/11/2017 - 13:52

Mark Haney wrote:
What´s the alternative? Hardware RAID with SSDs not particularly designed for
this application is a bad idea. Software RAID with mdadm is a bad idea because
it comes with quite some performance loss. ZFS is troublesome because it´s not
as well integrated as we can wish for, booting from a ZFS volume gives you even
more trouble, and it is rather noticeable that ZFS wasn´t designed with
performance in mind.

That doesn´t even mention features like checksumming, deduplication, compression
and the creation of subvolumes (or their equivalent). It also doesn´t mention
that LVM is a catastrophy.

I could use hardware RAID, but neither XFS, nor ext4 offer the required features.

So what should I use instead of btrfs or ZFS? I went with btrfs because it´s
less troublesome than ZFS and provides features for which I don´t know any good
alternative. So far, it´s working fine, but I´d rather switch now than experience
desaster.

Re: Btrfs going forward, was: Errors on an SSD drive

By Warren Young at 08/11/2017 - 14:29

On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:52 AM, hw <hw@gc-24.de> wrote:
That sounds like outdated information, from the time before CPUs were fast enough to do parity RAID calculations with insignificant overhead.

Those are both solvable problems, involving less resources than Fedora/Red Hat are throwing at Stratis. Therefore, we can infer that they don’t *want* to solve those problems.

You don’t get the vastly superior filesystem durability ZFS offers without a performance hit. Any competing filesystem that comes along and offers the same features will have the same hit.

If you want burnin’ speed at all costs, use ext4.

That is intended to be in Stratis, but not until 3.0, which is not yet even scheduled.

This is part of what I meant by my speculation in a prior post that Stratis won’t be ready for prime time until EL9. Plan accordingly.

Also Stratis 3.0.

That should be possible with the earliest testable versions of Stratis, as LVM2 provides this today:

<a href="https://goo.gl/2U4Uio" title="https://goo.gl/2U4Uio">https://goo.gl/2U4Uio</a>

I will grant that it’s an utter mess to manage by hand with the current tools. Fixing that is one of the primary goals of the Stratis project.

Complaining about it on the CentOS list is not the right way to fix it. If you want Stratis to not suck, they’re targeting the first releases of it for Fedora 28.

There’s also the GitHub issue tracker. Let them know what you want Stratis to be; the Stratis developers are not likely to schedule features “properly” if they misunderstand which ones matter most to you.

My sense is that the Linux-first hardware RAID card market is shrinking and maybe even dying.

With 10-dumb-SATA motherboards readily available, I think it’s time for hardware RAID to die in Linux, too, if only in the workstation and low-end server segment, where 10-ish drives is enough.

One of your options is to take advantage of the fact that CentOS major releases overlap in support: EL7 will still be supported when EL9 comes out. All of this should be greatly clarified by then.

Re: Btrfs going forward, was: Errors on an SSD drive

By Gordon Messmer at 08/11/2017 - 14:21

On 08/11/2017 10:52 AM, hw wrote:

That's not usually the case in my experience. Battery-backed write
caches make benchmarks like bonnie++ look amazing, but in real workloads
I typically see better performance from md RAID.