From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul B. Henson" Subject: RE: 3.10LTS ok for production? Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:21:00 -0800 Message-ID: <08dd01cee006$3d6de180$b849a480$@acm.org> References: <20131109030128.GJ5474@bender.unx.csupomona.edu> <20131109064721.GC30271@kmo-pixel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20131109064721.GC30271@kmo-pixel> Content-Language: en-us Sender: linux-bcache-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: 'Kent Overstreet' Cc: linux-bcache-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org > From: Kent Overstreet [mailto:kmo-PEzghdH756F8UrSeD/g0lQ@public.gmane.org] > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:47 PM > > Yes - 3.10 LTS (or 3.11) has been what you want to be running for awhile > now; I've been making sure all the bugfixes get backported quickly. Cool, thanks for the feedback. I ended up starting with a 3.11.7 kernel after all, I'm going to play with that and see what happens. I'm looking forward to the potential support for redundant cache devices within bcache itself, so I won't have to mirror my two SSDs, but still have redundancy for writeback and more overall space for read caching. Not sure what the timeline is for that, but imagine it wouldn't be backported to 3.10.