From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rolf Fokkens Subject: Re: bcache-tools and bcache support in other linux packages Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 17:06:39 +0200 Message-ID: <526BDA7F.5060302@rolffokkens.nl> References: <20131020185937.GA18759@lazy.lzy> <20131021164756.GA8027@lazy.lzy> <5266BBA7.4070106@rolffokkens.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5266BBA7.4070106-6w2rdlBuEQTpMFipWq+H6g@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-bcache-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Piergiorgio Sartor Cc: Gabriel de Perthuis , linux-bcache-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Development discussions related to Fedora List-Id: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org On 10/22/2013 07:53 PM, Rolf Fokkens wrote: > Well, I agree, there's more to it. Like cost. One could consider to > pair serveral HHD' each with a dedicated bcache SSD. And from that one > could build a RAID array. This RAID array has excellent (read) > performance because of the combined SSD performance. This storage > system does break when one of the HDD's or SDD's breaks, which is also > a nice feature. So if it weren't for the cost (and the number of > availbale SATA connectors) this could be interresting. But it's all a > matter of requirements of course. I noticed a somewhat confusing typo, the right sentence is "This storage system does NOT break when one of the HDD's or SDD's breaks".