public inbox for linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kai Krakow <hurikhan77@gmail.com>
To: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Btrfs on bcache device: mount options?
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 08:30:32 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151124083032.11b858f5@jupiter.sol.kaishome.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 871tcvhlff.fsf@gmail.com

Am Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:27:32 +0200
schrieb Simon Herter <sim.herter@gmail.com>:

> 
> Vojtech Pavlik writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:04:35PM +0200, Simon Herter wrote:
> >
> >> I'm using btrfs on a bcache device and I'm a bit confused about
> >> mount options. For example, bcache may (if I understood correctly)
> >> bypass the cache completely for sequential access. So should I use
> >> "ssd" mount option or not? Are there any general recommendations?
> >
> > No, you should not. It modifies the data layout behavior to ignore
> > seek times. These may be present when reading from the backing
> > media.
> 
> Sounds reasonable. A short note on that: _not_ specifying 'ssd' is not
> enough, one has to specify 'nossd' explicitly. Btrfs enables 'ssd'
> automatically by checking /sys/block/bcache0/queue/rotational to be
> zero - which is true. (Though I'm not sure whether bcache got that
> right. One could argue that returning the backing device's rotational
> value would be better, especially to get the defaults right for
> btrfs.)
> 
> > You likely want to enable compression and autodefragmentation, too.
> 
> When I read 'autodefrag' I was worried about my ssd at first, but I
> found some discussion about that on the btrfs mailing list, so that
> seems to be fine. Thanks for the suggestions.

I found that using autodefrag with bcache eats lifetime of your SSD a
lot. I suggest watching your SSD smart stats closely for a while before
turning it permanently on. Autodefrag constantly rewrites even big
files, this is still not optimized in btrfs.

You may better want to individually mark files nocow in btrfs which are
subject to high fragmentation and source of low performance due to
this, like sqlite files, database files, vm images, etc. Such files
usually have their own transaction safety layer anyways - so you do not
really need btrfs transactional cow protection for these.

But I'll look into the nossd option. I wondered about this myself.

Regards,
Kai

-- 

      reply	other threads:[~2015-11-24  7:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-15 13:04 Btrfs on bcache device: mount options? Simon Herter
2015-10-15 14:29 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2015-10-15 21:27   ` Simon Herter
2015-11-24  7:30     ` Kai Krakow [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20151124083032.11b858f5@jupiter.sol.kaishome.de \
    --to=hurikhan77@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox