Thanks for all the answers from all you guys. They are really very much
appreciated!
Taken together, it seems I am left with the following options:
1) Btrfs/RAID1 with lvmcache: Not well proven, at least partly buggy.
Caches can be easily added and removed to existing partitions.
2) BTRFS/RADI1
Am 24.12.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Piotr Pawłow:
> Hello,
>> - both hdd and ssd in one LVM VG
>> - one LV on each hdd, containing a btrfs filesystem
>> - both btrfs LV configured as RAID1
>> - the single SDD used as a LVM cache device for both HDD LVs to speed up
>> random access, where possible
>
> I
Am 24.12.2015 um 03:04 schrieb Duncan:
I had a look at bcache, but focused on lvmcache mainly because of the
flexibility it offers. It can be easily added and removed. For LVM it is
just another LV, so all the LVM magic applies.
But thanks, I should take another look at bcache.
> I'll let other
Am 23.12.2015 um 21:56 schrieb Chris Murphy:
> Btrfs always writes to the 'cache LV' and then it's up to lvmcache to
> determine how and when things are written to the 'cache pool LV' vs
> the 'origin LV' and I have no idea if there's a case with writeback
> mode where things write to the SSD and o
right? Would that give any serious problems?
Am 23.12.2015 um 11:45 schrieb Neuer User:
> Hello
>
> I want to setup a small homeserver, based on a HP Microserver Gen8 (4GB
> RAM, 2x3TB HDD + 1x120GB SSD) and Proxmox as distro.
>
> The server will be used to host a (small)
Am 23.12.2015 um 20:49 schrieb Chris Murphy:
> Seems to me if the LV's on the two HDDs are exposed, the lvmcache has
> to separately keep track of those LVs. So as long as everything is
> working correctly, it should be fine. That includes either transient
> or persistent, but consistent, errors fo
Am 23.12.2015 um 20:45 schrieb Noah Massey:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Neuer User wrote:
> I believe Martin's concern is two-fold:
>
> The first, major issue, concerns the default writeback cache mode,
> which makes the SSD a single point of failure.
> (in write
Am 23.12.2015 um 12:21 schrieb Martin Steigerwald:
> Hi.
>
> As far as I understand this way you basically loose the RAID 1 semantics of
> BTRFS. While the data is redundant on the HDDs, it is not redundant on the
> SSD. It may work for a pure read cache, but for write-through you definately
>
Hello
I want to setup a small homeserver, based on a HP Microserver Gen8 (4GB
RAM, 2x3TB HDD + 1x120GB SSD) and Proxmox as distro.
The server will be used to host a (small) number of virtual machines,
most of them being LXC containers, few being KVM machines. One of the
LXC containers will host a
It's probably best to copy al my data to another disk, then delete the
parttiion and make a new ext4 partition. btrfs is probably still too
experimental, I guess.
Am 30.04.2014 08:37, schrieb Neuer User:
> Hi
>
> I have a non-rootfs btrfs partition that I use for some work where I
Hi
I have a non-rootfs btrfs partition that I use for some work where I
like to keep some snapshots. The partition is about 160GB big and has
about 80-90 GB of data.
I often see the following errors:
Apr 29 20:41:24 DesktopMB kernel: [47030.195270] INFO: task sync:2450
blocked for more than 120
11 matches
Mail list logo
