A few Qs regarding SSDs, caching, read speeds and duplication... in General Posted March 15, 2014 Dled the trial and ran a couple of benchmarks while I was at it. First, I tested a game load. The game is called path of exile, and the load takes an epic amount of time, seemingly due to a ton of random reads during startup. The system was rebooted between each run to clear the windows memory cache. The OS SSD is a 120GB Samsung 840 EVO, the SSD is a 240GB Samsung 840, and the HDD is a 2TB WD Green. Just so it's crystal clear what I'm doing here, "unpooled" is using the same physical drives that are in the pool, but using the non-pooled space. Pooled is reading from the pooled volume. The OS SSD is completely outside of the pool. OS SSD - 20s unpooled HDD - 68s unpooled SSD - 20s pooled HDD only - 81s (slowdown could be due to fragmentation or a different location on disk) pooled SSD only - 20s pooled HDD/SSD duplicated - 23s Not bad...but not great either. I could see the game simultaneously loading from both the SSD and HDD in performance monitor, but the HDD held the SSD back by a few seconds. Now for some few raw copy speed tests. The total folder size is almost exactly 5GB in 310 files, the vast majority of which is in a single 4.8GB file. Pooled HDD only to OS SSD - 67s, 74mb/s Pooled SSD Only to OS SSD - 18s, 277mb/s Pooled Duplicated SSD/HDD to OS SSD - 16s, 312mb/s When we're dealing with sequential reads, even though the SSD is vastly faster than the HDD, the HDD doesn't hold the SSD back, but instead provides a boost. So in practice, the benefits of drivepool's read striping for sequential reads are turned on their head into a performance drag when the I/O load is more random. While the game load performance degradation vs pure SSD isn't severe enough to completely dissuade me from using it, there's some other issues. The major one is that once I start adding more HDDs to the pool, there's no guarantee that duplicates will land on the SSD, they can just as well land on another HDD. Even if I used the "file placement limiter" or "file placement priority" balancers to only put duplicated files on the SSD, then I couldnt use duplication across only HDDs for the more mundane stuff like MP3s...they'd just clog up and waste the valuable SSD space. Using the SSD as a "feeder" helps write speeds considerably, but it's almost immediately going to be dumped out to a HDD archive. And on top of that, I can no longer use junctions to shift specific games from the HDD to the SSD...something about the pooling breaks that functionality. I understand the primary market for diskpool is mass storage of files, where data integrity is a much larger concern than performance, but a lot of the potential of moderns SSD are going to waste. This is a huge opportunity for diskpool to set itself apart, and I can see a few ways to fix that. Diskpool would need to recognize SSDs as a special part of the pool, not just dumb storage equal in stature to HDDs. 1) The first part is basically already covered - write caching. This is basically what the archive optimizer plugin already does when you designate an SSD as a "feeder". Writes to the pool are super quick, since they all go straight to the SSD before being filtered down to the HDDs. 2) The second part is a little trickier. Essentially what I'm proposing is a balancer that will allow you to designate certain folders as "accelerated" - any of these folders will store a duplicate on a SSD. Ideally, you'd be able to selectively disable read striping from HDD backed accelerated folders, to maintain the SSD's random read advantage. But in a pool with multiple SSDs, duplicates could be spread across them, and read striping from 2-3 SSDs would probably give sequential and random read speeds through the roof. 3) Finally, the remainder of the SSD space in the pool should be used for read caching non-accelerated folders, based on access recency and frequency. A few considerations here: Enabling this caching should be left up to the user, as the additional writes will wear out the SSD much quicker. Likewise, users should be able to designate which folders should never be accelerated, because it's pointless burn out your SSD to cache media files. So in the perfect scenario, my pool with a 64gb SSD, 240GB SSD, 1TB HDD and 2x 2TB HDDs, I'd be able to cordone off 8GB for write caching and 32GB for read caching. I'd be able to mark my media folders as "do not accelerate", and mark specific games/apps as "accelerate". Accelerated folders would be balanced to spread across SSDs only, with spare space utilized to cache non-accelerated folders. Duplicates would start falling back to a single SSD as space begins to constrict. Once SSD space dries up to the point where the full set of accelerated duplicates can't be maintained in the available SSD space, the UI should notify the user so they can decide whether to de-accelerate some folders or add more SSD storage. It might sound like a radical proposal, but this kind of SSD caching/acceleration is fairly commonplace for non-pooled scenarios - bringing it to pooled disks would be a major step forward!