From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: bcache, layered block devices and unclean shutdowns
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 12:51:30 -0700
Message-ID: <20121004195130.GB29494@google.com>
References: <20121004103625.GD17229@narnia.kingsly.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-bcache-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20121004103625.GD17229-Z3X8UqLNtc1Swagx7F3lBaxOck334EZe@public.gmane.org>
Sender: linux-bcache-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
To: linux-bcache-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
List-Id: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 04:06:25PM +0530, Kingsly John wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> In the archives I found a thread from a few months ago where it was
> recommended that it's best to use bcache on the RAID layer.(rather than the
> disks themselves or LVM)
> 
> Wouldn't this affect bcache's ability to recover from an unclean shutdown?
> ie, if the raid array itself can't be brought up, bcache wouldn't be able to
> write caches to disk? (Or is that not a possibility)

Not sure what you're asking...