On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 1:42 PM Roman Mamedov <rm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:31:19 -0400 > Eli V <eliventer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Yes using lvm cache is an option, and will give you actual caching of > > the data files as well. However, in my experience it doesn't do much > > caching of metadata so using it on large filesystems doesn't seem to > > improve interactive usage much at all, i.e. ls -l, or btrfs filesystem > > usage etc. > > Forgot to mention that in my case (on a large media server) I had great > results with the described setup, especially noticeable in the mount time. > Walking large directories in a GUI file manager was more responsive too. Not > to mention mass deletion of snapshots. LVM cache seemed to know well to avoid > polluting itself with infrequently accessed sequential-pattern bulk operations > (i.e. copying or reading back the actual file data) and appeared to cache > mostly the metadata as it should. For anyone considering this, give it a try, > and give it at least a few days of normal usage to properly warm up. > > -- > With respect, > Roman Yes, certainly test it out for yourself. My use case is quite different, large(>300TB) btrfs filesystems used for rsync & snapshot backups of proprietary NAS. The coolest thing is, through the wonders of btrfs and lvm, you can dynamically convert from one configuration to the other. I don't think even a umount is needed.
