>
> So either we're hitting a pretty serious zfs bug, or they're purposely
> holding back performance in Solaris 10 so that we all have a good
> reason to
> upgrade to 11. ;)
In general, for ZFS we try to push all changes from Nevada back to
s10 updates.
In particular, "6535160 Lock contenti
We loaded Nevada_78 on a peer T2000 unit. Imported the same ZFS pool. I
didn't even upgrade the pool since we wanted to be able to move it back to
10u4. Cut 'n paste of my colleague's email with the results:
Here's the latest Pepsi Challenge results.
Sol10u4 vs Nevada78. Same tuning options,
> ) The write cache is non volatile, but ZFS hasn't
> been configured
> to stop flushing it (set zfs:zfs_nocacheflush =
> 1).
These are a pair of 2540 with dual-controllers, definitely non-volatile cache.
We set the zfs_nocacheflush=1 and that improved things considerably.
ZFS filesystem (2540
Vincent Fox wrote:
> So does anyone have any insight on BugID 6535160?
>
> We have verified on a similar system, that ZFS shows big latency in filebench
> varmail test.
>
> We formatted the same LUN with UFS and latency went down from 300 ms to 1-2
> ms.
This is such a big difference it makes me
Vincent Fox wrote:
> So does anyone have any insight on BugID 6535160?
>
> We have verified on a similar system, that ZFS shows big latency in filebench
> varmail test.
>
> We formatted the same LUN with UFS and latency went down from 300 ms to 1-2
> ms.
This is such a big difference it makes
So does anyone have any insight on BugID 6535160?
We have verified on a similar system, that ZFS shows big latency in filebench
varmail test.
We formatted the same LUN with UFS and latency went down from 300 ms to 1-2 ms.
http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-1-6535160-1
We run
