On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 08:28:39PM -0500, Denis Bychkov wrote: > > We certainly can do all that, but: since new bcache can't read the old bcache > > format (I can go into why that's impractical, if people are curious) - that > > means there's a pretty high cost to switching to the new format: > > - people have to manually upgrade > > - the kernel would have to carry around both the old and the new > > implementations of bcache for as long as people are using the old format - > > we can't force people to upgrade > > Not that hard technically, you could just leave the existing bcache > module as-is to avoid regressions when adding the new format support, > since the existing code does not require a lot of maintenance and add > a new module that would only recognize a new superblock. Another > question is how easy it is to convince Linus/top maintainers to keep 2 > modules with a lot of duplication with intention to retire the old > code eventually, but something tells me that you know ways around this > problem. We had that with the UHCI drivers, it is there with ext3/ext4, I don't think that is a real problem. > > So this isn't something we want to do more than once, which means we need to > > make sure the new on disk format is 100% done. And it's not quite done - the > > main thing that's left for it to really be considered done is big endian support > > and endian compatibility (writing the code so a little endian machine can read a > > big endian layout and vice versa; due to the way bkeys work it's not possible to > > just have an endian agnostic layout, we'll have to do swabbing). > > But this problem is not unique to bcache at all, AFAIK, almost any FS > linux supports would not be able to work on a different endianness > than it was created for. On the contrary, all modern filesystems cope with endianness portability. The only major filesystem in use where endianness is not handled is, as far I know, UFS. At the same time, I don't see endianness portability, the ability to create a cache on a machine with one endian and then mounting it on a machine with the opposite endian a real use case. Unlike fileystems, which can be used to transfer valuable data between machines, the cache only contains ephemeral data, which can easily be recreated from the backing device. Hence I believe that it is reasonable to require the user to nuke the contents of the cache when moving the cache set between machines of different endianity. Ideally this would happen automatically and error out if the cache isn't clean. Actually, the same would be fine for format version changes. > > And this isn't a trivial amount of work - and besides finishing the on disk > > format, there's a fair amount of work on tooling and related stuff to make sure > > everything is ready for the switch. > > > > And, I can't work for free, so somehow funding has to be secured. Given the > > number of companies that are using bcache, and the fact that Canonical and SuSe > > are both apparantly putting in at least a little bit of engineering time into > > supporting bcache, you'd think it should be possible but offers have not been > > forthcoming. > > I don't know, IMHO bcache was hurt a lot because of a host of small > problems that nobody was able to address for quite some time. It > gained a bad reputation as a production system, unfortunately, which > means not much interest from the enterprise world, which means > Canonical & co. did not want to invest into it. Don't get me wrong, I > am not blaming you. Of all people, I might understand pretty well what > was going on, just explaining why RH or Canonical or Suse did not > fight for the privilege to financially support this project. SUSE had plans for bcache, however, since upstram stable branch maintenance has been more than unreliable, we postponed most of them and are building knowledge in-house to be able to fully support it before we deploy. The structure of the code doesn't really help, either. -- Vojtech Pavlik Director SUSE Labs -- 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
