* bcache, layered block devices and unclean shutdowns
@ 2012-10-04 10:36 Kingsly John
[not found] ` <20121004103625.GD17229-Z3X8UqLNtc1Swagx7F3lBaxOck334EZe@public.gmane.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Kingsly John @ 2012-10-04 10:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-bcache-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA
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)
Kingsly
--
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: bcache, layered block devices and unclean shutdowns
[not found] ` <20121004103625.GD17229-Z3X8UqLNtc1Swagx7F3lBaxOck334EZe@public.gmane.org>
@ 2012-10-04 19:51 ` Kent Overstreet
[not found] ` <20121004195130.GB29494-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Kent Overstreet @ 2012-10-04 19:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-bcache-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA
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...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: bcache, layered block devices and unclean shutdowns
[not found] ` <20121004195130.GB29494-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
@ 2012-10-05 2:45 ` Kingsly John
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Kingsly John @ 2012-10-05 2:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-bcache-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA
+++ Kent Overstreet [2012-10-04 12:51:30]:
> 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...
If /dev/md0 is the backing device, in the event of an unclean shutdown during
a write it would be dirty(at the raid level) and there would be a resync
etc.
If the individual disks that make make up /dev/md0 were backing devices
instead, wouldn't bcache ensure that /dev/md0 would never end up dirty when
recovering from an unclean shutdown and eliminate the need for a forced
resync?
Is one better than the other in terms of maintaining data integrity or would
they both be equally reliable?
Kingsly
--
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-10-05 2:45 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-10-04 10:36 bcache, layered block devices and unclean shutdowns Kingsly John
[not found] ` <20121004103625.GD17229-Z3X8UqLNtc1Swagx7F3lBaxOck334EZe@public.gmane.org>
2012-10-04 19:51 ` Kent Overstreet
[not found] ` <20121004195130.GB29494-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2012-10-05 2:45 ` Kingsly John
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).