That sounds like a really good idea. If you trust your high-end
arrays (EMC, Engenio, HDS, Sun, etc.), I would think that a pool-
level don't-fsync-ZIL would be very beneficial.
As stated in the article, doing this on a storage solution without
battery backed cache is a very bad idea. How
Jeremy Teo wrote:
On 12/16/06, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> It would be nice if you could tell ZFS to turn off fsync() for ZIL
> writes on a per-zpool basis. That being said, I'm not sure there's a
> consensus on that...and I'm sure not s
Jeremy Teo wrote:
Are there actually storage arrays with battery backed cache that
*don't* allow themselves to be configured to ignore cache flush
commands?
The arrays/controllers that LSI makes are well known for being extremely
configurable. I would presume that most arrays you find on the
Richard Elling wrote:
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
It would be nice if you could tell ZFS to turn off fsync() for ZIL
writes on a per-zpool basis. That being said, I'm not sure there's a
consensus on that...and I'm sure not smart enough to be a ZFS
contributor. :-)
The behavior is a
