Mradr wrote:If so, why not give the option to disable L1 for use of the L2 and repair/finish the writes on the next boot up from L2 (I am guessing L2 will be an SSD or another hard drive where the data won’t be flushed like ram would)?
support wrote:Thank you, Mradr.Mradr wrote:If so, why not give the option to disable L1 for use of the L2 and repair/finish the writes on the next boot up from L2 (I am guessing L2 will be an SSD or another hard drive where the data won’t be flushed like ram would)?
The advantage of "Defer Write" mostly benefits from the memory. If using flash disks intead of physical memory, I think there is no any advantage to enable "Defer Write".
My SSD so far has had really high random write speeds... WAY above that of my HDD (750GB WD Black). The reason you would not maintain very good write speeds is because you are both reading and writing from the disk at the same time. This causes ques to grow really large. From that, the SSD could never be your main drive or even a data drive if you choose to do this.laferrierejc wrote:ssd's don't maintain very good write speeds on random 4k's, but that's the beauty of this software, it clumps those random writes into one lump write of full write speed.
laferrierejc wrote:why bother if your ram can do that for you? There is an obvious benefit in using an ssd for read cache, but not so much a write cache (it doesn't make sense to ssd (even persistent writes, just keep them in ram).
laferrierejc wrote:It does make sense to cache read to ram, a second persistent reads to ssd.
xD When that happens, fancycache wont be a solution either as the SSD would run even faster than ram, and that speed is comming as HP seems to have found a way to make "cheaper" mem-resisters as fast as ram is now and as small as 10n.support wrote:When SSDs become cheaper and cheaper, this solution will be no use.
Mradr wrote:I think the following is what people are mainly asking for in the next patch/update:
4) Pool Dynamic Priority Percent Base L1 (50% max ram usage that all cache device will access with the c: drive having priority of 1 [priority and the precent amount of ram settable by the user]) - Some people would like to pool their ram so multiple drives can access the L1 without wasting needless ram for each drive/volume. They would also like this pooled ram to be dynamic so not to waste needs ram again. From the pool ram, they would like to reassin the ram ussages for each drive/volume base off a percent and priority of who gets to use that ram pool.
RAMbo wrote:RAM pool sounds very useful to me. Looking at teh diagram it looks like volume is pooled. The setting of the software seems to say otherwise......?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest