Torrey McMahon writes:
> Reads? Maybe. Writes are an other matter. Namely the overhead associated
> with turning a large write into a lot of small writes. (Checksums for
> example.)
>
> Jeremy Teo wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Isn't a large block size a simple case of prefetching? In oth
Reads? Maybe. Writes are an other matter. Namely the overhead associated
with turning a large write into a lot of small writes. (Checksums for
example.)
Jeremy Teo wrote:
Hello all,
Isn't a large block size a simple case of prefetching? In other words,
if we possessed an intelligent prefetch
Hello all,
Isn't a large block size a simple case of prefetching? In other words,
if we possessed an intelligent prefetch implementation, would there
still be a need for large block sizes? (Thinking aloud)
:)
--
Regards,
Jeremy
___
zfs-discuss mailing
Torrey McMahon wrote:
Matthew Ahrens wrote:
Or, as has been suggested, add an API for apps to tell us the
recordsize before they populate the file.
I'll drop a RFE in and point people at the number.
For those playing at home the RFE is 6483154
___
On Oct 17, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
Jeremy Teo wrote:
Heya Anton,
On 10/17/06, Anton B. Rang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, the reason to try to match recordsize to the write size is so
that a small write does not turn into a large read + a large
write. In configurations wh
Matthew Ahrens wrote:
Or, as has been suggested, add an API for apps to tell us the
recordsize before they populate the file.
I'll drop a RFE in and point people at the number.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.op
Jeremy Teo wrote:
Heya Anton,
On 10/17/06, Anton B. Rang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, the reason to try to match recordsize to the write size is so that
a small write does not turn into a large read + a large write. In
configurations where the disk is kept busy, multiplying 8K of data
tran
Heya Anton,
On 10/17/06, Anton B. Rang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, the reason to try to match recordsize to the write size is so that a small
write does not turn into a large read + a large write. In configurations where
the disk is kept busy, multiplying 8K of data transfer up to 256K hur
No, the reason to try to match recordsize to the write size is so that a small
write does not turn into a large read + a large write. In configurations where
the disk is kept busy, multiplying 8K of data transfer up to 256K hurts.
This is really orthogonal to the cache — in fact, if we had a sw
One technique would be to keep a histogram of read & write sizes.
Presumably one would want to do this only during a “tuning phase” after the
file was first created, or when access patterns change. (A shift to smaller
record sizes can be detected by a large proportion of write operations which
10 matches
Mail list logo
