On 6 November 2012 00:15, James Sefton <james@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > James Sefton <james@...> writes: > >> >> James Sefton <james@...> writes: >> >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > Seems I broke something. >> > <.. pruned previous post ..> >> >> Yes, reproduced it after a clean boot. >> It gets stuck creating the third cache device. (/dev/bcache2) >> >> Here is the latest info from kern.log, but it looks very similar to what I >> posted before. >> >> http://pastebin.com/r8YRSNGR >> >> Any idea if I am doing something wrong or is this a bug? >> I need to create up to 64 cache devices. Possibly slightly over that on rare >> occasions. (The majority of servers will have 16-32) >> >> Many Thanks, >> >> James >> >> > > > Aha, I have more information. > > ls /dev/block -l > > <filtered results to relevant> > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Nov 5 12:51 252:0 -> ../bcache0 > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Nov 5 12:51 252:1 -> ../bcache1 > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 12 Nov 5 12:51 252:2 -> ../bcache1p1 > > > Our script does things in the following order: > 1. Registers bcache0 - OK > - links bcache0 in /dev/block/252:0 > 2. Registers bcache1 - OK > - links bcache1 in /dev/block/252:1 > 3. Partitions bcache1 - OK (single partition at the moment) > - links bcache1p1 in /dev/block/252:2 > 4. Partitions bcache0 - Partition table writes okay, but bcache0p1 does not get > created. > - presumably attempts to link /dev/block/252:1 or something, and fails. > 5. Registers bcache2 - FAIL, prevents any further bcache devices being > registered and prevents system shut-down. > - attempts to link bcache2 in /dev/block/252:2, which is already used for > bcache1p1. > > Probably explains why this has not been seen before since we only just added > support for partitions with the patch details you recently gave me. > > Any chance of a patch to fix the numbering? > (I wish my C++ was up to scratch so that I could do it myself as it looks like > it could be relatively simple!) > > Many Thanks, > > James > > > -- > 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 Though not a fix, a workaround could be to use LVM rather than partitions. LVM ontop of bcache works quite nicely you just need to add the following to /etc/lvm.conf types = [ "bcache", 16 ] Also check your filter line to ensure that /dev/bcacheX will be scanned as a PV. Once you have done that you can create a volume group as usual: vgcreate vg0 /dev/bcache0 And then any number of LVs: lvcreate -n root -L50G vg0 In my opinion this is considerably better than partitions. Joseph. -- CTO | Orion Virtualisation Solutions | www.orionvm.com.au Phone: 1300 56 99 52 | Mobile: 0428 754 846 -- 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
