On Thu, 2025-08-07 at 11:21 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
> > > > >
>
> This looks interesting, but why isn't it upstreamed into the linux
> kernel? What's stopping it being added if it's so good?
See my other reply in this thread about that:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-lvm/eb048b63ab9ecc6aba53
> "matthew" == matthew patton writes:
>> IOW is LVM caching effective?
> no it is not. Unless your workload pounds on the same files over and
> over which for OS files is nil. You want open-cas
> Linux. https://github.com/Open-CAS/open-cas-linux
This looks interesting, but why isn't it up
> "Brian" == Brian J Murrell writes:
> I'm wondering what are the best practices for taking advantage of the
> speed of SSDs in combination with spinning rust drives in a volume
> group.
> I have 111GB of free SSD space in the same volume group as all of my
> system's filesystems (/, /usr, /
But is death of an SSD for a write-through cache all that catastrophic?
The underlying data (on the spinning rust drives) is still there and
coherent and recovery is simply removing the reference to the cache,
(i.e. changing your mount devices, etc.) no?
Cheers,
b.
On Thu, 2025-08-07 at 02:22 +, matthew patton wrote:
> > IOW is LVM caching effective?
>
> no it is not. Unless your workload pounds on the same files over and
> over which for OS files is nil.
> You want open-cas Linux. https://github.com/Open-CAS/open-cas-linux
Ah yes. It seems I have bee
> IOW is LVM caching effective?
no it is not. Unless your workload pounds on the same files over and over which
for OS files is nil.
You want open-cas Linux. https://github.com/Open-CAS/open-cas-linux
