> Is a 16GB ARC size not considered to be enough? ;-) > > I was only describing the behavior that I observed. It seems to me > that when large files are written very quickly, that when the file > becomes bigger than the ARC, that what is contained in the ARC is > mostly stale and does not help much any more. If the file is smaller > than the ARC, then there is likely to be more useful caching.
That's the problem of grouping writes, since they're going to be buffered in the ARC. Writing a file larger than the ARC is akin to holding a powerful firehose on it. :) I guess what'd help your case would be an option that specifies the minimum of ARC memory dedicated to read caching only. -mg _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
