Nathan Kroenert wrote:
Hm - a ZilArc??
Or, slarc?
Or L2ArZi
I'm tried something sort of similar to this when fooling around,
adding different *slices* for ZIL / L2ARC but as I'm too poor to
afford good SSD's my resolut was poor at beat... ;)
Perfectly predictable. zilstat will show you th
Hm - a ZilArc??
Or, slarc?
Or L2ArZi
I'm tried something sort of similar to this when fooling around, adding
different *slices* for ZIL / L2ARC but as I'm too poor to afford good
SSD's my resolut was poor at beat... ;)
Having ZFS manage some 'arbitrary fast stuff' and sorting out it's own
On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 12:49 -0800, Richard Elling wrote:
> But I'm curious as to why you would want to put both the slog and
> L2ARC on the same SSD?
Reducing part count in a small system.
For instance: adding L2ARC+slog to a laptop. I might only have one slot
free to allocate to ssd.
IMHO the
Richard Elling wrote:
Wes Felter wrote:
proportional scheduling for storage performance
slog and L2ARC on the same SSD
The current scheduler is rather simple, there might be room for
improvements -- but that may be a rather extended research topic.
Yes. For GSoC it would probably be wise to
Wes Felter wrote:
proportional scheduling for storage performance
slog and L2ARC on the same SSD
The current scheduler is rather simple, there might be room for
improvements -- but that may be a rather extended research topic.
But I'm curious as to why you would want to put both the slog and
