From: Nix <nix@esperi.org.uk>
To: Pavel Goran <via-bcache@pvgoran.name>
Cc: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>,
linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] bcache: device failure handling improvement
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 18:57:25 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <874ln9hilm.fsf@esperi.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1664591662.20180125063516@pvgoran.name> (Pavel Goran's message of "Thu, 25 Jan 2018 06:35:16 +0300")
On 25 Jan 2018, Pavel Goran told this:
> Hello Nix,
>
> Thursday, January 25, 2018, 1:23:19 AM, you wrote:
>
>> This feels wrong to me. If a cache device is writethrough, the cache is
>> a pure optimization: having such a device fail should not lead to I/O
>> failures of any sort, but should only flip the cache device to 'none' so
>> that writes to the backing store simply don't get cached any more.
>
>> Anything else leads to a reliability reduction, since in the end cache
>> devices *will* fail.
>
> It's one of those choices: "if something can't work as intended, should it be
> allowed to work at all?"
Given that the only difference between a bcache with a writearound cache
and a bcache with no cache is performance... is it really ever going to
beneficial to users to have a working system suddenly start throwing
write errors and probably become instantly nonfunctional because a
cache device has worn out, when it is perfectly possible to just
automatically dissociate the failed cache and slow down a bit?
I would suggest that no user would ever want the former behaviour, since
it amounts to behaviour that worsens a slight slowdown into a complete
cessation of service (in effect, an infinite "slowdown"). Is it better
to have a system working correctly but more slowly than before, or one
that without warning stops working entirely? Is this really even in
question?!
> Of course, this only applies to "writethrough" and "writearound" modes with
> zero dirty data; "writeback" bcache devices (or devices switched from
> writeback and still having some dirty data) should probably be disabled if the
> cache device fails.
Oh yes, definitely. That's simple correctness. The filesystem is no
longer valid if you make the cache device disappear in this case: at the
very least it needs a thorough fscking, i.e. sysadmin attention.
--
NULL && (void)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-25 18:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-14 14:42 [PATCH v3 00/13] bcache: device failure handling improvement Coly Li
2018-01-14 14:42 ` [PATCH v3 01/13] bcache: set writeback_rate_update_seconds in range [1, 60] seconds Coly Li
2018-01-16 9:03 ` Hannes Reinecke
2018-01-14 14:42 ` [PATCH v3 02/13] bcache: properly set task state in bch_writeback_thread() Coly Li
2018-01-16 9:02 ` Hannes Reinecke
2018-01-14 14:42 ` [PATCH v3 03/13] bcache: set task properly in allocator_wait() Coly Li
2018-01-16 9:05 ` Hannes Reinecke
2018-01-16 9:29 ` Coly Li
2018-01-14 14:42 ` [PATCH v3 04/13] bcache: fix cached_dev->count usage for bch_cache_set_error() Coly Li
2018-01-14 14:42 ` [PATCH v3 05/13] bcache: quit dc->writeback_thread when BCACHE_DEV_DETACHING is set Coly Li
2018-01-16 9:11 ` Hannes Reinecke
2018-01-26 6:21 ` Coly Li
2018-01-14 14:42 ` [PATCH v3 06/13] bcache: stop dc->writeback_rate_update properly Coly Li
2018-01-14 14:42 ` [PATCH v3 07/13] bcache: set error_limit correctly Coly Li
2018-01-14 14:42 ` [PATCH v3 08/13] bcache: add CACHE_SET_IO_DISABLE to struct cache_set flags Coly Li
2018-01-14 14:42 ` [PATCH v3 09/13] bcache: stop all attached bcache devices for a retired cache set Coly Li
2018-01-14 14:42 ` [PATCH v3 10/13] bcache: fix inaccurate io state for detached bcache devices Coly Li
2018-01-16 9:27 ` Hannes Reinecke
2018-01-14 14:42 ` [PATCH v3 11/13] bcache: add backing_request_endio() for bi_end_io of attached backing device I/O Coly Li
2018-01-16 9:28 ` Hannes Reinecke
2018-01-14 14:42 ` [PATCH v3 12/13] bcache: add io_disable to struct cached_dev Coly Li
2018-01-16 9:32 ` Hannes Reinecke
2018-01-14 14:42 ` [PATCH v3 13/13] bcache: stop bcache device when backing device is offline Coly Li
2018-01-16 9:33 ` Hannes Reinecke
2018-01-24 22:23 ` [PATCH v3 00/13] bcache: device failure handling improvement Nix
2018-01-25 3:35 ` Re[2]: " Pavel Goran
2018-01-25 18:57 ` Nix [this message]
2018-01-26 4:15 ` Pavel Goran
2018-01-26 4:56 ` Coly Li
2018-01-26 5:51 ` Michael Lyle
2018-01-26 6:23 ` Coly Li
2018-02-16 12:11 ` Nix
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=874ln9hilm.fsf@esperi.org.uk \
--to=nix@esperi.org.uk \
--cc=colyli@suse.de \
--cc=linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=via-bcache@pvgoran.name \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.