On Jun 22 2021, Ivan Shapovalov <inte...@intelfx.name> wrote:
> I'm also worried about the s3ql block cache. If I'm going to use s3ql
> in this setup at all, no matter the block size, it means I'll be
> writing 1 TB of data daily(!) to the SSD that holds the block cache.
>
> Is this solvable in s3ql somehow? I'd just put it in RAM (reducing the
> cache size to something like 1 GiB which I can spare), but the cache
> directory also holds the metadata, which needs to be non-volatile.
The cache is in a -cache subdirectory. You might be able to symlink that
/ mount over it. Note that the name depends on the storage URL though.
Best,
-Nikolaus
--
GPG Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"s3ql" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to s3ql+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/s3ql/87o8by444n.fsf%40vostro.rath.org.
