Ed -
Simple test. Get onto a system where you *can* disable the disk cache,
disable it, and watch the carnage.
Until you do that, you can pose as many interesting theories as you like.
Bottom line is that at 75 IOPS per spindle won't impress many people,
and that's the sort of rate you get w
Hi,
instead of slicing and/or partitioning a drive one can also limit the
capacity the drive reports the controller and OS. This is what oem's
do to ensure that drives from different manufacturers and revisions
all have the same capacity.
Different routes need to be followed for (S)ATA and SCSI/SA
Hi,
instead of slicing and/or partitioning a drive one can also limit the
capacity the drive reports the controller and OS. This is what oem's
do to ensure that drives from different manufacturers and revisions
all have the same capacity.
Different routes need to be followed for (S)ATA and SCSI/SA
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
That's my argument, unless somebody can tell me where my logic is wrong.
Disk write cache offers zero benefit. And disk read cache only offers
benefit in unusual cases that I would call esoteric.
I was agreeing with your email until it came to this
> From: Jim Dunham [mailto:james.dun...@oracle.com]
>
> ZFS only uses system RAM for read caching,
If your email address didn't say oracle, I'd just simply come out and say
you're crazy, but I'm trying to keep an open mind here... Correct me where
the following statement is wrong: ZFS uses sys
