Chris Murphy <lists(a)colorremedies.com> writes:
> Okay, I'll bite. Why not rootfs on raid6?
It's pathological.
Sick? Non-functional? Unlucky?
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.
Doesn't the size argument assume that some drives are set aside for
rootfs only? Otherwise, it's reasonable to apply the same raid5/6
trade-offs to rootfs as to the other data on a shared pool of drives.
- FChE