On Fri, 23 May 2008, Bill McGonigle wrote: > The remote-disk cache makes perfect sense. I'm curious if there are > measurable benefits for caching local disks as well? NAND-flash SSD > drives have good 'seek' and slow transfer, IIRC, but that might > still be useful for lots of small reads where seek is everything.
NAND-flash SSD drives also wear out. They are not very useful as a cache device which is written to repetitively. A busy server could likely wear one out in just a day or two unless the drive contains aggressive hardware-based write leveling so that it might survive a few more days, depending on how large the device is. Cache devices are usually much smaller and run a lot "hotter" than a normal filesystem. Bob ====================================== Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
