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
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
zfs-discuss mailing list