On Feb 7, 2011, at 1:10 PM, Yi Zhang wrote:
>
> This is actually what I did for 2.a) in my original post. My concern
> there is that ZFS' internal write buffering makes it hard to get a
> grip on my application's behavior. I want to present my application's
> "raw" I/O performance without too much
On 2/7/2011 1:10 PM, Yi Zhang wrote:
[snip]
This is actually what I did for 2.a) in my original post. My concern
there is that ZFS' internal write buffering makes it hard to get a
grip on my application's behavior. I want to present my application's
"raw" I/O performance without too much outside
On 02/07/11 12:49, Yi Zhang wrote:
If buffering is on, the running time of my app doesn't reflect the
actual I/O cost. My goal is to accurately measure the time of I/O.
With buffering on, ZFS would batch up a bunch of writes and change
both the original I/O activity and the time.
if batching ma
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Yi Zhang wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
>>> ZFS cannot not buffer. The reason is that ZFS likes to batch transactions
>>> into
>>> as large a contiguous write to disk as possi
On Mon, February 7, 2011 14:49, Yi Zhang wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Bill Sommerfeld
> wrote:
>> On 02/07/11 11:49, Yi Zhang wrote:
>>>
>>> The reason why I
>>> tried that is to get the side effect of no buffering, which is my
>>> ultimate goal.
>>
>> ultimate = "final". Â you must h
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On 02/07/11 11:49, Yi Zhang wrote:
>>
>> The reason why I
>> tried that is to get the side effect of no buffering, which is my
>> ultimate goal.
>
> ultimate = "final". you must have a goal beyond the elimination of
> buffering in the files
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Yi Zhang wrote:
>> Please see my previous email for a high-level discussion of my
>> application. I know that I don't really need O_DSYNC. The reason why I
>> tried that is to get the side effect of no bufferin
On 02/07/11 11:49, Yi Zhang wrote:
The reason why I
tried that is to get the side effect of no buffering, which is my
ultimate goal.
ultimate = "final". you must have a goal beyond the elimination of
buffering in the filesystem.
if the writes are made durable by zfs when you need them to be
Le 7 févr. 2011 à 17:08, Yi Zhang a écrit :
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Roch wrote:
>>
>> Le 7 févr. 2011 à 06:25, Richard Elling a écrit :
>>
>>> On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:10 AM, Yi Zhang wrote:
>>>
Hi all,
I'm trying to achieve the same effect of UFS directio on ZFS and he
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Yi Zhang wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Brandon High wrote:
>> Maybe I didn't make my intention clear. UFS with directio is
>> reasonably close to a raw disk from my application's perspective: when
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Yi Zhang wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Brandon High wrote:
> Maybe I didn't make my intention clear. UFS with directio is
> reasonably close to a raw disk from my application's perspective: when
> the app writes to a file location, no buffering happens.
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Brandon High wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Yi Zhang wrote:
>> Maybe I didn't make my intention clear. UFS with directio is
>> reasonably close to a raw disk from my application's perspective: when
>> the app writes to a file location, no buffering happe
> Maybe I didn't make my intention clear. UFS with directio is
> reasonably close to a raw disk from my application's perspective: when
> the app writes to a file location, no buffering happens. My goal is to
> find a way to duplicate this on ZFS.
There really is no need to do this on ZFS. Using a
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Brandon High wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Yi Zhang wrote:
>> I already set primarycache to metadata, and I'm not concerned about
>> caching reads, but caching writes. It appears writes are indeed cached
>> judging from the time of 2.a) compared to UFS+
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Yi Zhang wrote:
> I already set primarycache to metadata, and I'm not concerned about
> caching reads, but caching writes. It appears writes are indeed cached
> judging from the time of 2.a) compared to UFS+directio. More
> specifically, 80MB/2s=40MB/s (UFS+directi
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Brandon High wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Yi Zhang wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Richard Elling
>> wrote:
>>> Solaris UFS directio has three functions:
>>> 1. improved async code path
>>> 2. multiple concurrent writers
>>>
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Yi Zhang wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Richard Elling
> wrote:
>> Solaris UFS directio has three functions:
>> 1. improved async code path
>> 2. multiple concurrent writers
>> 3. no buffering
>>
> Thanks for the comments, Richard. A
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Roch wrote:
>
> Le 7 févr. 2011 à 06:25, Richard Elling a écrit :
>
>> On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:10 AM, Yi Zhang wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'm trying to achieve the same effect of UFS directio on ZFS and here
>>> is what I did:
>>
>> Solaris UFS directio has three f
Le 7 févr. 2011 à 06:25, Richard Elling a écrit :
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:10 AM, Yi Zhang wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm trying to achieve the same effect of UFS directio on ZFS and here
>> is what I did:
>
> Solaris UFS directio has three functions:
> 1. improved async code path
> 2
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Richard Elling
wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:10 AM, Yi Zhang wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm trying to achieve the same effect of UFS directio on ZFS and here
>> is what I did:
>
> Solaris UFS directio has three functions:
> 1. improved async code path
>
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:10 AM, Yi Zhang wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm trying to achieve the same effect of UFS directio on ZFS and here
> is what I did:
Solaris UFS directio has three functions:
1. improved async code path
2. multiple concurrent writers
3. no buffering
Of the th
Hi all,
I'm trying to achieve the same effect of UFS directio on ZFS and here
is what I did:
1. Set the primarycache of zfs to metadata and secondarycache to none,
recordsize to 8K (to match the unit size of writes)
2. Run my test program (code below) with different options and measure
the runnin
22 matches
Mail list logo
