On 2 July 2013 20:20, Toby Corkindale <[email protected]> wrote: <...> > > Having looked at it a bit more, it seems better suited to the > SSD-caching scenario than ZFS; there are auto-tuning parameters in > bcache to detect at what point to just bypass the cache and go straight > to the disks, saving more cache room for blocks that will benefit.
This is precisely what the ZFS L2ARC is supposed to do. > And the write-ahead logging is limited only by the size of the > cache.(Whereas ZFS' ZIL can't grow very large) I don't know enough about bcache writes to make a comparison, but the maximum ZIL size would only be dictated by write throughput. At least bcache is filesystem agnostic and doesn't suffer from the NIH syndrome. -- Joel Shea <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
