On 29/01/2018 8:57 PM, Nix wrote: > On 27 Jan 2018, Coly Li said: > >> Current bcache failure handling code will stop all attached bcache devices >> when the cache set is broken or disconnected. This is desired behavior for >> most of enterprise or cloud use cases, but maybe not for low end >> configuration. Nix <nix@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> points out, users may still want to >> access the bcache device after cache device failed, for example on laptops. > > Actually I'm much interested in the server use case. On laptops, it's > relatively easy to recover if you know what you're doing, because they > usually have a user in front of them with console access -- but if a > remote headless server with a hundred users a thousand miles away has > its cache device wear out I would really rather the hundred users get > served, if more slowly, rather than the whole machine going down for > hours or days until I can get someone there to bash on the hardware! > Hi Nix, Thanks for the input, I didn't think of such use case before. It makes a lot sense ! > (Sure, ideally you'd detect the wearing out in advance, but SSDs are not > always nice and helpful like that and sometimes just go instantly > readonly or simply vanish off the bus entirely without warning.) > Yes. Then in the v5 patch set, I will add an option for "always"/"auto", which will leave bcache device alive if the broken cache set is clean. Thank you all again, for the insight and brilliant suggestion ! Coly Li -- 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
