From: "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@gmail.com>
To: Juan Orti Alcaine <j.orti.alcaine@gmail.com>,
Roman Mamedov <rm@romanrm.net>
Cc: Marco Lorenzo Crociani <marcoc@prismatelecomtesting.com>,
Btrfs BTRFS <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: mount time for big filesystems
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 09:59:26 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <437dddb7-6d3f-6ad8-7802-51b62e22d708@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAC+fKQXozVX4OsKOVxPEdRPkO=5iakEJenaxLHoaQ4FieSUmLA@mail.gmail.com>
On 2017-09-01 09:52, Juan Orti Alcaine wrote:
> 2017-08-31 13:36 GMT+02:00 Roman Mamedov <rm@romanrm.net>:
>> If you could implement SSD caching in front of your FS (such as lvmcache or
>> bcache), that would work wonders for performance in general, and especially
>> for mount times. I have seen amazing results with lvmcache (of just 32 GB) for
>> a 14 TB FS.
>
> I'm thinking about adding a SSD for my 4 disks RAID1 filesystem, but I
> have doubts about how to correctly do it in a multidevice filesystem.
>
> I guess I should make 4 partitions on the SSD and pair them with my
> backing devices, then create the btrfs on top of bcache0, bcache1,...
> is this the right way to do it?
If you are going to use bcache, you don't need separate caches for each
device (and in fact, you're probably better off sharing a cache across
devices).
If instead you're going to use dm-cache/LVM, you will need two logical
volumes per-device for the cache, one big one (for the actual cache),
and one little one (for metadata, usually a few hundred MB is fine).
In general though, you're correct, it is preferred to do things in the
order you suggested. It is technically possible sometimes to convert an
existing device to being cached in-place, but it's risky, and restoring
from a backup onto a clean filesystem has other benefits too.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-01 13:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-31 10:43 mount time for big filesystems Marco Lorenzo Crociani
2017-08-31 11:00 ` Hans van Kranenburg
2017-08-31 11:22 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-08-31 11:36 ` Roman Mamedov
2017-08-31 11:45 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-08-31 12:16 ` Roman Mamedov
2017-08-31 14:13 ` Qu Wenruo
2017-09-01 13:52 ` Juan Orti Alcaine
2017-09-01 13:59 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn [this message]
[not found] ` <CAC+fKQWFbdF6b3jGO_6hG_pNNzKobBYMeSNyEi5XRCf5YKa81Q@mail.gmail.com>
2017-09-01 15:20 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-09-01 22:41 ` Dan Merillat
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=437dddb7-6d3f-6ad8-7802-51b62e22d708@gmail.com \
--to=ahferroin7@gmail.com \
--cc=j.orti.alcaine@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcoc@prismatelecomtesting.com \
--cc=rm@romanrm.net \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).