Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

On 2016-05-29 22:45, Ferry Toth wrote: Op Sun, 29 May 2016 12:33:06 -0600, schreef Chris Murphy: On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: On 05/29/16 19:53, Chris Murphy wrote: But I'm skeptical of bcache using a hidden area historically for

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

On 2016-05-29 16:45, Ferry Toth wrote: Op Sun, 29 May 2016 12:33:06 -0600, schreef Chris Murphy: On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: On 05/29/16 19:53, Chris Murphy wrote: But I'm skeptical of bcache using a hidden area historically for

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

Op Sun, 29 May 2016 12:33:06 -0600, schreef Chris Murphy: > On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Holger Hoffstätte > wrote: >> On 05/29/16 19:53, Chris Murphy wrote: >>> But I'm skeptical of bcache using a hidden area historically for the >>> bootloader, to put its

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: > On 05/29/16 19:53, Chris Murphy wrote: >> But I'm skeptical of bcache using a hidden area historically for the >> bootloader, to put its device metadata. I didn't realize that was the >> case. Imagine if

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

On 05/29/16 19:53, Chris Murphy wrote: > But I'm skeptical of bcache using a hidden area historically for the > bootloader, to put its device metadata. I didn't realize that was the > case. Imagine if LVM were to stuff metadata into the MBR gap, or > mdadm. Egads. On the matter of bcache in

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:23 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: > 20.05.2016 20:59, Austin S. Hemmelgarn пишет: >> On 2016-05-20 13:02, Ferry Toth wrote: >>> We have 4 1TB drives in MBR, 1MB free at the beginning, grub on all 4, >>> then 8GB swap, then all the rest btrfs (no LVM

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

20.05.2016 20:59, Austin S. Hemmelgarn пишет: > On 2016-05-20 13:02, Ferry Toth wrote: >> We have 4 1TB drives in MBR, 1MB free at the beginning, grub on all 4, >> then 8GB swap, then all the rest btrfs (no LVM used). The 4 btrfs >> partitions are in the same pool, which is in btrfs RAID10 format.

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

On 2016-05-20 18:26, Henk Slager wrote: Yes, sorry, I took some shortcut in the discussion and jumped to a method for avoiding this 0.5-2% slowdown that you mention. (Or a kernel crashing in bcache code due to corrupt SB on a backing device or corrupted caching device contents). I am actually

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

bcache protective superblocks is a one-time procedure which can be done online. The bcache devices act as normal HDD if not attached to a caching SSD. It's really less pain than you may think. And it's a solution available now. Converting back later is easy: Just detach the

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-05-20 13:02, Ferry Toth wrote: >> >> We have 4 1TB drives in MBR, 1MB free at the beginning, grub on all 4, >> then 8GB swap, then all the rest btrfs (no LVM used). The 4 btrfs >> partitions are in the

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

On 2016-05-20 13:02, Ferry Toth wrote: We have 4 1TB drives in MBR, 1MB free at the beginning, grub on all 4, then 8GB swap, then all the rest btrfs (no LVM used). The 4 btrfs partitions are in the same pool, which is in btrfs RAID10 format. /boot is in subvolume @boot. If you have GRUB

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

Op Fri, 20 May 2016 08:03:12 -0400, schreef Austin S. Hemmelgarn: > On 2016-05-19 19:23, Henk Slager wrote: >> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn >> wrote: >>> On 2016-05-19 14:09, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Wed, 18 May 2016 22:44:55 + (UTC)

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

On 2016-05-19 19:23, Henk Slager wrote: On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-05-19 14:09, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Wed, 18 May 2016 22:44:55 + (UTC) schrieb Ferry Toth : Op Tue, 17 May 2016 20:33:35 +0200, schreef

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

On 2016-05-19 17:01, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Thu, 19 May 2016 14:51:01 -0400 schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" : For a point of reference, I've got a pair of 250GB Crucial MX100's (they cost less than 0.50 USD per GB when I got them and provide essentially the same power-loss

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-05-19 14:09, Kai Krakow wrote: >> >> Am Wed, 18 May 2016 22:44:55 + (UTC) >> schrieb Ferry Toth : >> >>> Op Tue, 17 May 2016 20:33:35 +0200, schreef Kai Krakow: >>> Am Tue,

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

Am Thu, 19 May 2016 14:51:01 -0400 schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" : > For a point of reference, I've > got a pair of 250GB Crucial MX100's (they cost less than 0.50 USD per > GB when I got them and provide essentially the same power-loss > protections that the high end

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

On 2016-05-19 14:09, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Wed, 18 May 2016 22:44:55 + (UTC) schrieb Ferry Toth : Op Tue, 17 May 2016 20:33:35 +0200, schreef Kai Krakow: Am Tue, 17 May 2016 07:32:11 -0400 schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" : On 2016-05-17 02:27,

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

Am Wed, 18 May 2016 22:44:55 + (UTC) schrieb Ferry Toth : > Op Tue, 17 May 2016 20:33:35 +0200, schreef Kai Krakow: > > > Am Tue, 17 May 2016 07:32:11 -0400 schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" > > : > > > >> On 2016-05-17 02:27, Ferry Toth wrote: >

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

Op Tue, 17 May 2016 20:33:35 +0200, schreef Kai Krakow: > Am Tue, 17 May 2016 07:32:11 -0400 schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" > : > >> On 2016-05-17 02:27, Ferry Toth wrote: >> > Op Mon, 16 May 2016 01:05:24 +0200, schreef Kai Krakow: >> > >> >> Am Sun, 15 May 2016 21:11:11

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

Am Tue, 17 May 2016 07:32:11 -0400 schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" : > On 2016-05-17 02:27, Ferry Toth wrote: > > Op Mon, 16 May 2016 01:05:24 +0200, schreef Kai Krakow: > > > >> Am Sun, 15 May 2016 21:11:11 + (UTC) > >> schrieb Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net>: > >> >

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

On 2016-05-17 02:27, Ferry Toth wrote: Op Mon, 16 May 2016 01:05:24 +0200, schreef Kai Krakow: Am Sun, 15 May 2016 21:11:11 + (UTC) schrieb Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net>: Ferry Toth posted on Sun, 15 May 2016 12:12:09 + as excerpted: You can go there with only one additional HDD

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

Op Mon, 16 May 2016 01:05:24 +0200, schreef Kai Krakow: > Am Sun, 15 May 2016 21:11:11 + (UTC) > schrieb Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net>: > >> Ferry Toth posted on Sun, 15 May 2016 12:12:09 + as excerpted: >> > > You can go there with only one additional HDD as temporary storage. Just >

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

On 2016-05-15 08:12, Ferry Toth wrote: Is there anything going on in this area? We have btrfs in RAID10 using 4 HDD's for many years now with a rotating scheme of snapshots for easy backup. <10% files (bytes) change between oldest snapshot and the current state. However, the filesystem seems

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

Am Sun, 15 May 2016 21:11:11 + (UTC) schrieb Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net>: > Ferry Toth posted on Sun, 15 May 2016 12:12:09 + as excerpted: > > > Is there anything going on in this area? > > > > We have btrfs in RAID10 using 4 HDD's for many years now with a > > rotating scheme of

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

Ferry Toth posted on Sun, 15 May 2016 12:12:09 + as excerpted: > Is there anything going on in this area? > > We have btrfs in RAID10 using 4 HDD's for many years now with a rotating > scheme of snapshots for easy backup. <10% files (bytes) change between > oldest snapshot and the current

Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

Is there anything going on in this area? We have btrfs in RAID10 using 4 HDD's for many years now with a rotating scheme of snapshots for easy backup. <10% files (bytes) change between oldest snapshot and the current state. However, the filesystem seems to become very slow, probably due to