From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul B. Henson" Subject: RE: Another bcache hang Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:46:56 -0800 Message-ID: <155b01cee7bb$9befd5d0$d3cf8170$@acm.org> References: <20131121135604.GA26424@professorx.home.zettazebra.com> <14da01cee71f$28d233f0$7a769bd0$@acm.org> <20131122034919.GA25040@professorx.home.zettazebra.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f49.google.com ([209.85.220.49]:39748 "EHLO mail-pa0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755605Ab3KVTrB (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:47:01 -0500 Received: by mail-pa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id kx10so1729529pab.8 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:47:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20131122034919.GA25040@professorx.home.zettazebra.com> Content-Language: en-us Sender: linux-bcache-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org To: "'David H. Rhodes Clymer'" Cc: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org > From: David H. Rhodes Clymer [mailto:david@zettazebra.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 7:49 PM > > Laziness, mostly. The RAID1 array is a PV that houses filesystems we'd > rather thot lose. The development databases are not so critical - we > rebuild them at least once a week anyway. The use of LVs was a quick > and easy way to test various caching implementations without increasing > the risk of data loss or corruption in the rest of the system. Ah, okay, I get it; you had a pre-existing PV with production stuff on it you didn't want to lose and were just testing out bcache, makes sense. I haven't seen any responses to your hang report though :(, while obviously there's no expectation of support, it's always nice if you're going to drop something into production to have a forum where the experts give you a hand when things blow chunks.