On Fri, 13 Jun 2008, Al Hopper wrote:
> storage sub-system. Currently, ZFS determines if the access pattern
> is random or sequential and there is no mechanism to provide it with
> "hints".
Right. But this untunable generality may prevent it from being used
for real-time uncompressed 2K resoluti
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a followup, I see that there is an optional posix_fallocate()
> function defined in the POSIX standard
> (http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/posix_fallocate.html)
> With some Linux-related discussi
As a followup, I see that there is an optional posix_fallocate()
function defined in the POSIX standard
(http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/posix_fallocate.html)
With some Linux-related discussion at http://lwn.net/Articles/226710/.
Recent Linux (2.6.23) has implemented this
Even though ZFS is "the last word" in filesystems, is there something
more that an application can do when writing large files sequentially
in order to assure that the data is stored as contiguously as
possible? Does this notion even make sense given that ZFS load-shares
large blocks across a
