> I've also suggested this in the past, but I think the > end result was that it was pointless: > > If you have sync writes, the client does not get a > reply until the data is on disk. So a SSD drive > makes a huge difference. > > If you have async writes, the client gets a reply as > soon as the server has the data, before it gets to > disk. So the disk speed makes no difference to > response time.
agreed - but if the client stalls because of memory pressure anyway, perhaps there is some benefit in using SDD to relieve this. For the most part, this likely only affects corner cases where significant IO creates pressure. There seems to be enough anecdotal cases that talk about application stalls that may warrant another look at it. Maybe combining ARC limits and incorporating SDD can help to smooth out IO impacts and reduce application stalling. jmh -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
