1 |
Am Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:12:36 +0000 |
2 |
schrieb Peter Humphrey <peter@××××××××××××.uk>: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Tuesday 21 Mar 2017 22:50:04 Kai Krakow wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> ---<8 |
7 |
> |
8 |
> > I'm combining this with bcache. That's a cache between kernel and |
9 |
> > filesystem that you put on SSD. Apparently, it requires |
10 |
> > repartitioning to map your filesystem through bcache (it has to add |
11 |
> > a protective superblock in front of your FS). So, a small SSD + |
12 |
> > bcache can make your complete 500GB spinning rust act mostly like |
13 |
> > SSD perfomance-wise. |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > I think there's a script that can move your FS 8 kB forward on HDD |
16 |
> > to add that bcache superblock. But I wouldn't try that without |
17 |
> > backup and some spare time. But it is a performance wonder. |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> > Using 3x 1TB btrfs RAID + 500GB bcache here. The system feels like |
20 |
> > an SSD system but I don't have to decide what to put on a small SSD |
21 |
> > and what to put on big slow storage. Is just automagic. ;-) |
22 |
> |
23 |
> You have me thinking now. I have a couple of spare 1TB SSDs here, and |
24 |
> my workstation is a 12-core i7 running on a 256GB NVMe drive with 32 |
25 |
> GB RAM. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Maybe I should put the SSDs into a RAID-1 to contain the system (the |
28 |
> same as they were in the old, now defunct box), then use the NVMe for |
29 |
> bcache. What do you think of that idea? I'm not desperately short of |
30 |
> space, but I've none spare either. |
31 |
|
32 |
I'm not sure if bcache can use NVMe at their full potential... Maybe |
33 |
head over to the bcache list and ask there. I think it faces some write |
34 |
serialization issues while NVMe should better work with multi-queue |
35 |
scheduler. |
36 |
|
37 |
If you're going to use mdraid, maybe better look into mdcache. |
38 |
|
39 |
But your results would be interesting. :-) |
40 |
|
41 |
|
42 |
-- |
43 |
Regards, |
44 |
Kai |
45 |
|
46 |
Replies to list-only preferred. |