From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul B. Henson" Subject: RE: Another bcache hang Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:52:27 -0800 Message-ID: <001b01cee7dd$e82f5d90$b88e18b0$@acm.org> References: <20131121135604.GA26424@professorx.home.zettazebra.com> <14da01cee71f$28d233f0$7a769bd0$@acm.org> <20131122034919.GA25040@professorx.home.zettazebra.com> <528F6BAD.7080703@warr.net> <156301cee7bc$3b7fc420$b27f4c60$@acm.org> <528FBFCE.7020104@warr.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.220.46]:59560 "EHLO mail-pa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756342Ab3KVXwc (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:52:32 -0500 Received: by mail-pa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id kl14so1985605pab.19 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:52:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <528FBFCE.7020104@warr.net> Content-Language: en-us Sender: linux-bcache-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org To: 'Jason Warr' Cc: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org > From: Jason Warr [mailto:jason@warr.net] > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 12:34 PM > > I would say it is going to be a better choice for use cases that are > more dynamic in nature. By that I mean where you may have a larger > number of smaller volumes that may have different needs for redundancy > and/or where you may be adding or removing physical devices often. Ah, that's true; using raid at the lvm layer allows you to selectively choose redundancy as opposed to dropping the entire pv on top of an mdraid. > There are lots of good options that are becoming more viable now that we > have a real in kernel caching device to mask out allot of previous > performance concerns. Continuing to veer off-topic ;), what kernel version are you currently using with bcache? I was originally thinking of going 3.10LTS, but ended up installing 3.11 based on the mailing list traffic.