On Tue, August 11, 2009 09:24, Marcelo Leal wrote: > Many companies (including SUN), has just hardware with support to SLC... > as i need both, i just want to hear your experiences about use SLC SSD > for ZFS cache. One point is cost, but i want to know if the performance > is much different, because the two are created specifically to provide > better latency for one or another operation.
The cost of an SLC SSD is a lot cheaper than trying to get the same performance from purchasing many disks so you have a lot of spindles (you usually have to purchase 15 krpm). Here is one example of some of the performance increases that can be had: http://blogs.sun.com/brendan/entry/slog_screenshots Of course what you get depends on your actual workload. > If is not big deal, i will use some hardware (eg.: x4275) using just SLC > for readzilas and logs. It would probably be more cost effective to purchase SLC(s) for ZIL logs, but MLC SSD(s) for readzillas. This is what Sun does in their 7000 series storage appliances: http://blogs.sun.com/brendan/entry/l2arc_screenshots Again, what you personally get would depend on workload. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
