Dennis Clarke writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 03:47:31PM +0100, Peter Schuller wrote:
> >> > http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
> >>
> >> So just to confirm; disabling the zil *ONLY* breaks the semantics of
> >> fsync()
> >> and synchronous writes from the a
Hans-Juergen Schnitzer wrote:
Roch - PAE wrote:
Just posted:
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
Which role plays network latency? If I understand you right,
even a low-latency network, e.g. Infiniband, would not increase
performance substantially since the main bott
Hans-Juergen Schnitzer writes:
> Roch - PAE wrote:
> >
> > Just posted:
> >
> > http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
> >
> >
>
> Which role plays network latency? If I understand you right,
> even a low-latency network, e.g. Infiniband, would not increase
> perf
Peter Schuller wrote:
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
So just to confirm; disabling the zil *ONLY* breaks the semantics of fsync()
and synchronous writes from the application perspective; it will do *NOTHING*
to lessen the correctness guarantee of ZFS itself, inc
> Roch - PAE wrote:
>>
>> Just posted:
>>
>>http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
>
> Nice article. Now what about when we do this with more than one disk
> and compare UFS/SVM or VxFS/VxVM with ZFS as the back end - all with
> JBOD storage ?
>
> How then does ZFS compare as
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 03:47:31PM +0100, Peter Schuller wrote:
>> > http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
>>
>> So just to confirm; disabling the zil *ONLY* breaks the semantics of
>> fsync()
>> and synchronous writes from the application perspective; it will do
>> *NOTHING*
>
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 03:47:31PM +0100, Peter Schuller wrote:
> > http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
>
> So just to confirm; disabling the zil *ONLY* breaks the semantics of fsync()
> and synchronous writes from the application perspective; it will do *NOTHING*
> to lesse
Roch - PAE wrote:
Just posted:
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
Which role plays network latency? If I understand you right,
even a low-latency network, e.g. Infiniband, would not increase
performance substantially since the main bottleneck is that
the NFS server al
> Roch - PAE wrote:
>>
>> Just posted:
>>
>>http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
>
> Nice article.
I still need to read all of it .. closely.
> Now what about when we do this with more than one disk
> and compare UFS/SVM or VxFS/VxVM with ZFS as the back end - all with
> JB
> http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
So just to confirm; disabling the zil *ONLY* breaks the semantics of fsync()
and synchronous writes from the application perspective; it will do *NOTHING*
to lessen the correctness guarantee of ZFS itself, including in the case of a
p
Roch - PAE wrote:
Just posted:
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
Nice article. Now what about when we do this with more than one disk
and compare UFS/SVM or VxFS/VxVM with ZFS as the back end - all with
JBOD storage ?
How then does ZFS compare as an NFS server ?
-
Just posted:
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
Performance, Availability & Architecture Engineering
Roch BourbonnaisSun Microsystems, Icnc-Grenobl
12 matches
Mail list logo