You are not logged in.

#1 2016-10-12 21:11:08

Registered: 2016-02-27
Posts: 260

Is bcache stable?


I need to replace one of my HDDs. I'm using it for my home folder (and games) and VMs.

I need a 4TB drive. So I was thinking about a Seagate 4TB and 256GB SSD for cache.

Is bcache stable enough?

Other ideas will be welcome.



#2 2016-10-12 21:18:44

Registered: 2013-11-15
Posts: 1,075

Re: Is bcache stable?

There is also lvmcache. I've used neither.

I prefer using SSD as primary storage. Put / and /home on it. Use the HDD for junk. (movies and all the clunky stuff that does not benefit ssd speeds)

A cache is not half and not whole... it always caches stuff that doesn't need to be cached, and doesn't have the stuff cached you need to have and it's hard to tell how it does what it does and where it keeps its brain.

If you use the SSD as primary storage, if something is not on SSD that should be, it's obvious and obviously your own fault since you're the one who decides where to put what.

On the other hand, with SSD as a cache - as long as it works stable it's just plug in and not worry about ever...

It's a matter of taste.


#3 2016-10-12 21:26:33

Registered: 2013-04-10
Posts: 1,631

Re: Is bcache stable?

bcache has been in mainline kernel for years and should be perfectly stable.
I used it on my system around the time it got merged without any issues


#4 2016-11-12 09:16:43

From: Bologna - Italy
Registered: 2008-06-02
Posts: 87

Re: Is bcache stable?

using dm-cache/lvmcache (a sort of bcache enhancement with device mapper) here since months with write cache enabled under an HDD mirror mdadm raid.
officially mainlined too, no problem at all so far even on brutal system halt.


Board footer

Powered by FluxBB