Cool! The thing I'd be really curious about is what the benchmarks would look like if you were using only the SSD, no bcache. How happy are you with it? On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Brad Campbell <lists2009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I use the term loosely. > > This is with the raw drive being a Maxtor MaxlineII 250GB 7200RPM SATA unit. > It's about a 2004 vintage with over 30,000 hours on it. Slow and steady. > > The Cache device is an OCZ Vertex Plus 120GB Unit. Not all that fast or > clever. The Cache has writeback enabled and is formatted with -w512 so that > direct IO worked as previously discussed. > > The benchmark is conducted inside an XP VM running under KVM. The device is > a qcow2 backing file formatted NTFS. I ran the test multiple times without > the cache until the numbers stabilised (the backing file was being expanded > as required) > > http://www.fnarfbargle.com/private/111022_bcache/Without_Cache.png > http://www.fnarfbargle.com/private/111022_bcache/With_Cache.png > > As expected a significant improvement in random small I/O. The VM is far > more responsive with the cache. > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
