The ideas was that only one pool could own it so that failover would be possible and the cache device would follow that pool. It also would be required for persistent l2arc.
However, it should be possible to create an independent l2arc which never fails over but can be added to multiple pools. It would not be a trivial implementation but seems doable. - George On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Andriy Gapon <andriy.ga...@clusterhq.com> wrote: > On 11/09/2015 16:36, George Wilson wrote: > > I don't think L2ARC can be shared only spare devices can be shared. > > But why? > And I do not mean multiple ownership of the cache devices. I mean that if > a pool > with a cache device is imported then the cache device could be used by ARC > for > the second level caching of data from any pool. > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Andriy Gapon < > andriy.ga...@clusterhq.com > > <mailto:andriy.ga...@clusterhq.com>> wrote: > > > > > > I am curious what was the original reason to not allow sharing of > cache > > devices > > (L2ARC) between pools? > > After all, the main ARC is shared for all pools. > > If more control is needed, perhaps we could have a pool property like > > shared-cache-devices (but less verbose) which would tell if data > from other > > pools can be cached on this pool's cache devices. > > > > -- > > Andriy Gapon > > > > _______________________________________________ > > developer mailing list > > developer@open-zfs.org <mailto:developer@open-zfs.org> > > http://lists.open-zfs.org/mailman/listinfo/developer > > > > > > > -- > Andriy Gapon > >
_______________________________________________ developer mailing list developer@open-zfs.org http://lists.open-zfs.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
