linux-ext4 - Re: bcache with existing ext4 filesystem

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:27:18 -0400
From:   Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:     Reindl Harald <h.reindl@...lounge.net>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kent.overstreet@...il.com, linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bcache with existing ext4 filesystem

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 09:15:48PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > 
> > Am 24.07.2017 um 20:57 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> > >Would it be feasible to run bcache (write-through) with existing ext4
> > >filesystem?
> > >
> > >I have 400GB of data I'd rather not move, and SSD I could use for
> > >caching. Ok, SSD is connecte over USB2, but I guess it is still way
> > >faster then seeking harddrive on random access
> > 
> > i doubt that seriously - USB2 has a terrible latency
> 
> Well.. if that's too slow, I can get SSD M.2; plus bcache docs says
> that combination works.
> 
> And... if you ever tried to do git diff while git checkout is running
> on spinning rust... spinning rust has awful parameters when idle, and
> it only gets worse when loaded :-(.

So some hard numbers.  Max throughput of USB 2.0 is 53 MiB/s[1].  In
actual practice the max throughput you will see out of the USB 2.0
interface is 30-40 MiB/s.  In contrast, a HDD doing sequential reads
can easily do much more than that.

[1] https://superuser.com/questions/317217/whats-the-maximum-typical-speed-possible-with-a-usb2-0-drive

So a lot is going to depend on how bcache works.  If you can get large
sequential reads and writes to *bypass* the cache device, then I think
there's a good cache that bcache on a USB 2.0 device won't hurt.  It
might not help as much as you like, but that's a function of the
overhead of populating the cache and whether the cache can keep the
useful bits in the cache device.

Cheers,

					- Ted