Hi Nikolas, Zitat von Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@xxxxxxxx>:
[...] Indeed. But it's also yet another slightly worrying tidbit (maybe LVM is not considering it by default for a good reason).
Agreed, but from what I read, newer versions of LVM were said to support bcache devices out of the box (https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-lvm/2012-March/msg00007.html).
Also, just now someone on -btrfs advised: | > Otherwise I'll give bcache a shot. I've avoided it so far because of the | > need to reformat and because of rumours that it doesn't work well with | > LVM or BTRFS. But it sounds as if that's not the case.. | | It should work fine with _just_ BTRFS, but don't put any other layers | into the storage system like LVM or dmcrypt or mdraid, it's got some | pretty pathological interactions with the device mapper and md | frameworks still.
It might be that this is a bit oldish info. BTW, I read that BTRFS on LVM is bad and causes problems ;)
We run MD-RAID (R6 for HDDs, R1 for SSDs) beneath bcache. We've run thousands of Gigabytes of read and write traffic through this, successfully. (And of course - YMMV :-/ ). We've used SATA disks (RAID-compatible WD Red) & SSDs (when not running via Supermicro's servers with SAS Extender chassis) and SAS disks & SSDs (on those servers with SAS extender), all fine.
From my point of view, bcache with latest bug fixes is a helpful and (operationally) stable solution.
Regards, Jens -- 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
