On 16-08-11 07:51:49, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 06:31:32PM +0200, Emmanuel Florac wrote: > > Le Wed, 10 Aug 2016 20:56:39 +1000 > > Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> écrivait: > > > > > Have you lookd at using dm-cache instead of modifying the > > > filesystem? > > > > > > > Or bcache, fcache, or EnhanceIO. So far from my own testing bcache is > > significantly faster and dm-cache by far the slowest of the bunch, but > > bcache needs some more loving (his main developer is busy writing > > some new tiered, caching filesystem instead). > > Yeah, the problem with bcache is that it is effectively an orphaned > driver. If there are obvious and reproducable performance > differentials between bcache and dm-cache, you should bring them to > the attention of the dm developers to see if they can fix them... > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Software like dm-cache and bcache seem to use SSDs merely as caches instead of aggregating the capacity of all devices. However I just found aufs and overlayfs, which conceptually suit the purpose better. Cheers, -- Wei Lin _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
