Thanks for the clarification.
Anyway, to Dearl Neal's point, you won't see much (if any) difference
between cached and not cached in zfs, until the next release, because
it is fs_flush that does the deed, and that is always called at present.
Incidentally, I have an action item to come up w
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:58:25PM -0700, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> I believe that Solaris always converts reads and writes into file mapped
> I/O, so if the cached attribute is missing or set to "false" the VM pages
> involved in that will be flushed, so you will see a small difference in
> perfor
Since zfs uses a private cache (the ARC) for most of its file caching,
rather than VM pages, the "caching" or not doesn't make that much
difference. On the other hand, ufs does use VM pages, so the caching
options makes quite a bit of difference.
The fs_flush script is used to flush the ZFS
Anyone have a clue as to why the results from large_db_oltp_Nk_cached and
large_db _oltp_Nk_unchached workloads would be about the same for a zfs
filesystem. .. Again, the system I am testing with is a V240, 2...@1503mhz, 4GB
RAM, using MPxIO, a single lun presented from from IBM SVC with EMC s
