On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 05:26:34PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Fri, 23 May 2008, Bill McGonigle wrote: > > The remote-disk cache makes perfect sense. I'm curious if there are > > measurable benefits for caching local disks as well? NAND-flash SSD > > drives have good 'seek' and slow transfer, IIRC, but that might > > still be useful for lots of small reads where seek is everything. > > NAND-flash SSD drives also wear out. They are not very useful as a > cache device which is written to repetitively. A busy server could > likely wear one out in just a day or two unless the drive contains > aggressive hardware-based write leveling so that it might survive a > few more days, depending on how large the device is. > > Cache devices are usually much smaller and run a lot "hotter" than a > normal filesystem.
Someone (Gigabyte, are you listening?) need to make something like the iRAM, only with more capacity and bump it up to 3.0Gbps. SAS would be nice since you could load a nice controller up with them. Does anyone make a 3.5" HDD format RAM disk system that isn't horribly expensive? Backing to disk wouldn't matter to me, but a battery that could hold at least 30 minutes of data would be nice. -brian -- "Coding in C is like sending a 3 year old to do groceries. You gotta tell them exactly what you want or you'll end up with a cupboard full of pop tarts and pancake mix." -- IRC User (http://www.bash.org/?841435) _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
