On 6 January 2011 14:45, Daniel Kalchev <dan...@digsys.bg> wrote: > For pure storage, that is a place you send/store files, you don't really > need the ZIL. You also need the L2ARC only if you read over and over again > the same dataset, which is larger than the available ARC (ZFS cache memory). > Both will not be significant for 'backup server' application, because it's > very unlikely to do lots of SYNC I/O (where separate ZIL helps), or serve > the same files back (where the L2ARC might help). > > You should also know that having large L2ARC requires that you also have > larger ARC, because there are data pointers in the ARC that point to the > L2ARC data. Someone will do good to the community to publish some reasonable > estimates of the memory needs, so that people do not end up with large but > unusable L2ARC setups. > > It seems that the upcoming v28 ZFS will help greatly with the ZIL in the > main pool.. > > You need to experiment with the L2ARC (this is safe with current v14 and v15 > pools) to see if your usage will see benefit from it's use. Experimenting > with ZIL currently requires that you recreate the pool. With the > experimental v28 code things are much easier. >
I see, thanks for the pointers. The thing is, this will be a home storage (samba share, media server) box, but I'd also like to experiment a bit, and it seems like a waste to not try at least the cache, seeing I'll have a SSD at hand. If things go well, I may be able to recommend ZFS for production storage servers at work and I'd really like to know how the cache and ZIL work at that time ;) _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
