From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kent Overstreet Subject: Re: support for physical ramdisk Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:52:20 -0800 Message-ID: <4D37B174.9040309@gmail.com> References: <4D377D66.5020609@gmail.com> <4D37890B.3060808@gmail.com> <4D378C5E.7050309@gmail.com> <4D37AD2D.6070108@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4D37AD2D.6070108-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-bcache-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Cory Coager Cc: linux-bcache-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org On 01/19/2011 07:34 PM, Cory Coager wrote: > Sounds great, when will it be ready? ;-) Well, good question. I've been short funding and thus time for bcache lately; not sure what's happening there just yet. And there's a bunch of things on my todo list; my main priority has been the code for a bcache specific block device and superblock for the backing device. After that is multiple cache devices, volume management and tiered storage, but there's no set order those and journalling/external journal support need to be done in. > > On 01/19/2011 08:27 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote: >> Well, ram is more expensive per gigabyte than SSDs, particularly if >> you've got something with a battery attached - the idea would be to >> use your SSD for buffering 80 gb or so of writes, but then buffer all >> of bcache's metadata writes in battery backed-up ram, significantly >> decreasing the number of write IOPS to the SSD, and making it so >> pretty much all the writes to the SSD are big contiguous writes. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html