Hi Brad,
You should see better performance on the dev box running 10/09 with the
sd and ssd drivers as is because they should properly handle the SYNC_NV
bit in this release.
If you have determined that the 11/06 system is affected by this issue,
then the best method is to set this parameter i
We're running 10/09 on the dev box but 11/06 is prodqa.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Brad,
It depends on the Solaris release. What Solaris release are you running?
Thanks,
Cindy
On 01/27/10 11:43, Brad wrote:
Cindy,
It does not list our SAN (LSI/STK/NetApp)...I'm confused about disabling cache
from the wiki entries.
Should we disable it by turning off zfs cache syncs via "
Cindy,
It does not list our SAN (LSI/STK/NetApp)...I'm confused about disabling cache
from the wiki entries.
Should we disable it by turning off zfs cache syncs via "echo
zfs_nocacheflush/W0t1 | mdb -kw " or specify it by storage device via the
sd.conf method where the array ignores cache flus
Brad,
If you are referring to this thread that starting in 2006, then I would
review this updated section:
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide#Cache_Flushes
Check to see if your array is described or let us know which array you
are referring to...
Thanks,
Cind
Hi! So after reading through this thread and checking the bug report...do we
still need to tell zfs to disable cache flush?
set zfs:zfs_nocacheflush=1
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
It seems though that the critical feature we need was optional in the
SBC-2 spec.
So we still need some development to happen on the storage end.
But we'll get there...
Le 19 déc. 06 à 20:59, Jason J. W. Williams a écrit :
Hi Roch,
That sounds like a most excellent resolution to me. :-)
Hi Roch,
That sounds like a most excellent resolution to me. :-) I believe
Engenio devices support SBC-2. It seems to me making intelligent
decisions for end-users is generally a good policy.
Best Regards,
Jason
On 12/19/06, Roch - PAE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jason J. W. Williams writes:
Jason J. W. Williams writes:
> 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
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
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 smart enough to be a
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 reality we had to deal
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 reality we had to deal with and workaround, so I
pos
The instructions will tell you how to configure the array to ignore
SCSI cache flushes/syncs on Engenio arrays. If anyone has additional
instructions for other arrays, please let me know and I'll be happy to
add them!
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to allow the administrator to disable
ZFS from
Hi Folks,
Roch Bourbonnais and Richard Elling helped me tremendously with the
issue of ZFS killing performance on arrays with battery-backed cache.
Since this seems to have been mentioned a bit recently, and there are
no instructions on how to fix it on Sun StorageTek/Engenio arrays, I
wanted to
18 matches
Mail list logo
