Hi!
> > > > > > Unfortunately, that would mean shifting 400GB data 8KB forward, and
> > > > > > compatibility problems. So I'd prefer adding bcache superblock into
> > > > > > the reserved space, so I can have caching _and_ compatibility with
> > > > > > grub2 etc (and avoid 400GB move):
> > > > >
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2017-07-26 13:41, Eric Wheeler wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Jul 2017, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > > > > > Unfortunately, that would mean shifting 400GB data 8KB forward,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > compatibility problems. So I'd
On 2017-07-26 13:41, Eric Wheeler wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Unfortunately, that would mean shifting 400GB data 8KB forward, and
compatibility problems. So I'd prefer adding bcache superblock into
the reserved space, so I can have caching _and_ compatibility with
grub
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > > Unfortunately, that would mean shifting 400GB data 8KB forward, and
> > > > > compatibility problems. So I'd prefer adding bcache superblock into
> > > > > the reserved space, so I can have caching _and_ compatibility with
> > > > > grub2
Hi!
> > > > Unfortunately, that would mean shifting 400GB data 8KB forward, and
> > > > compatibility problems. So I'd prefer adding bcache superblock into
> > > > the reserved space, so I can have caching _and_ compatibility with
> > > > grub2 etc (and avoid 400GB move):
> > >
> > > The common w
On Tue 2017-07-25 14:02:25, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 03:46:04PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > Is there some field in ext2 superblock that changes every time
> > filesystem is changed? Is mtime changed by fsck/badblocks/...?
>
> No, there isn't. If we were writing the s
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Tue 2017-07-25 12:32:48, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 08:43:04AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > On Tue 2017-07-25 00:51:56, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:04:51PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > > Ques
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 03:46:04PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> Is there some field in ext2 superblock that changes every time
> filesystem is changed? Is mtime changed by fsck/badblocks/...?
No, there isn't. If we were writing the superblock every time the
file system is changed it would be *
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:12:10PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> Well... if I move the partition, grub2 (etc) will be unable to access
> data on it. (Plus I do not have free space before some of the
> partitions I'd like to be cached).
Both Grub and Linux's implementation of ext4 expect the supe
Hi!
> > Question for you was... Is the first 1KiB of each ext4 filesystem still
> > free and "reserved for a bootloader"?
>
> Yes.
>
> > If I needed more for bcache superblock (8KiB, IIRC), would that be
> > easy to accomplish on existing filesystem?
>
> Huh? Why would the bcache superblock ma
On Tue 2017-07-25 12:32:48, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 08:43:04AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Tue 2017-07-25 00:51:56, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:04:51PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > Question for you was... Is the first 1KiB of each ext4 f
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 08:43:04AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Tue 2017-07-25 00:51:56, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:04:51PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Question for you was... Is the first 1KiB of each ext4 filesystem still
> > > free and "reserved for a bootloader"
On Tue 2017-07-25 00:51:56, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:04:51PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Question for you was... Is the first 1KiB of each ext4 filesystem still
> > free and "reserved for a bootloader"?
>
> Yes.
Thanks.
> > If I needed more for bcache superblock (8KiB
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:04:51PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Question for you was... Is the first 1KiB of each ext4 filesystem still
> free and "reserved for a bootloader"?
Yes.
> If I needed more for bcache superblock (8KiB, IIRC), would that be
> easy to accomplish on existing filesystem?
H
Hi!
On Mon 2017-07-24 15:27:18, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 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
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
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.
On Mon 2017-07-24 21:08:16, Reindl Harald 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
Hi!
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 have kernels on
that part
19 matches
Mail list logo
