> "rvd" == Ray Van Dolson writes:
> "ak" == Andrey Kuzmin writes:
rvd> I missed out on this thread. How would these dropped flushed
rvd> writes manifest themselves?
presumably corrupted databases, lost mail, or strange NFS behavior
after the server reboots when the clients do n
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 11:55:12AM -0800, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010, Miles Nordin wrote:
> >
> >ls> r...@nexenta:/volumes# hdadm write_cache off c3t5
> >
> >ls> c3t5 write_cache> disabled
> >
> > You might want to repeat his test with X25-E. If the X25-E is also
> > drop
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010, Miles Nordin wrote:
>>
>> ls> r...@nexenta:/volumes# hdadm write_cache off c3t5
>>
>> ls> c3t5 write_cache> disabled
>>
>> You might want to repeat his test with X25-E. If the X25-E is also
>> dropping cache flush
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010, Miles Nordin wrote:
ls> r...@nexenta:/volumes# hdadm write_cache off c3t5
ls> c3t5 write_cache> disabled
You might want to repeat his test with X25-E. If the X25-E is also
dropping cache flush commands (it might!), you may be, compared to
disabling the ZIL, slowing
> "pr" == Peter Radig writes:
> "ls" == Lutz Schumann writes:
pr> I was expecting a good performance from the X25-E, but was
pr> really suprised that it is that good (only 1.7 times slower
pr> than it takes with ZIL completely disabled). So I will use the
pr> X25-E as ZIL
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Bob Friesenhahn <
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Marc Nicholas wrote:
>
>>
>> The write IOPS between the X25-M and the X25-E are different since with
>> the X25-M, much
>> more of your data gets completely lost. Most of us prefer not to
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Marc Nicholas wrote:
The write IOPS between the X25-M and the X25-E are different since with the
X25-M, much
more of your data gets completely lost. Most of us prefer not to lose our data.
Would you like to qualify your statement further?
Google is your friend. And chec
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Bob Friesenhahn <
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Marc Nicholas wrote:
>
> Very interesting stats -- thanks for taking the time and trouble to share
>> them!
>>
>> One thing I found interesting is that the Gen 2 X25-M has higher write
>>
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Marc Nicholas wrote:
Very interesting stats -- thanks for taking the time and trouble to share them!
One thing I found interesting is that the Gen 2 X25-M has higher write IOPS
than the
X25-E according to Intel's documentation (6,600 IOPS for 4K writes versus 3,300
IOPS fo
Peter Radig wrote:
I was interested in the impact the type of an SSD has on the performance of the
ZIL. So I did some benchmarking and just want to share the results.
My test case is simply untarring the latest ON source (528 MB, 53k files) on an
Linux system that has a ZFS file system mounted
Very interesting stats -- thanks for taking the time and trouble to share
them!
One thing I found interesting is that the Gen 2 X25-M has higher write IOPS
than the X25-E according to Intel's documentation (6,600 IOPS for 4K writes
versus 3,300 IOPS for 4K writes on the "E"). I wonder if it'd perf
11 matches
Mail list logo
