linux-kernel - Re: [GIT] Bcache version 12

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]

Message-ID: <CAC7rs0tSPAwC4WGWPn6t3H0hq_tB06nK-PA2KXLK+bWwTs+81Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:07:30 -0700
From:	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
To:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:	linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, rdunlap@...otime.net,
	axboe@...nel.dk, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, neilb@...e.de
Subject: Re: [GIT] Bcache version 12

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> Does it consider the raid5/6 write hole in what it caches?  Guess I
> need to take a look at the code, but just wondering if it considers
> the need to maintain a consistent strip when writing back to raid5/6
> array, or would there still be a need for a separate driver/region of
> the SSD for caching that data.

Do you mean - if you're caching a raid5 (not the individual devices,
the entire array) the parity blocks?

In that case no, bcache will never see them. However, if you're doing
writeback caching that won't be a huge problem since you'll end up
with more full stripe writes.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/