Now I tried one diskpool with a next diskpool followed by a next tape pool
I had cache turned on for both diskpools...
I noticed strange things and ended up turning off cache on the very first
diskpool...

does anyone know of a limit on the number of consecutive diskpools which may
be "next"ed together and have "cache" "on"

that is... can you end up with to many cache pointers in some table
somewhere and trigger some overflow condition ? ? ?

when I get my test box back I might try dork'n with this a little...
it is something to think about (that I bet the developers haven't...)

Dwight