On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, Tracey Bernath wrote:
If the device itself was full, and items were falling off the L2ARC, then I could see having two separate cache devices, but since I am only at about 50% utilization of the available capacity, and maxing out the IO, then mirroring seemed smarter. Am I missing something here?
I doubt it. The only way to know for sure is to test it but it seems unlikely to me that zfs implementors would fail to load share the reads from mirrored L2ARC. Richard's points about L2ARC bandwidth vs pool disk bandwidth are still good ones. L2ARC is all about read latency, but L2ARC does not necessarily help with read bandwidth. It is also useful to keep in mind that L2ARC offers at least 40x less bandwidth than ARC in RAM. So always populate RAM first if you can afford it.
Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
