rs are
> constantly updating file. Hence my concerns about data integrity. Please
> explain.
>
> thaks
>
> Ayaz Anjum
>
>
>
>
> Darren Dunham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 03/12/2007 05:45 AM
>
On 11-Mar-07, at 11:22 PM, Stuart Low wrote:
Heya,
I believe Robert and Darren have offered sufficient explanations: You
cannot be assured of committed data unless you've sync'd it. You are
only risking data loss if your users and/or applications assume data
is committed without seeing a comp
Heya,
> I believe Robert and Darren have offered sufficient explanations: You
> cannot be assured of committed data unless you've sync'd it. You are
> only risking data loss if your users and/or applications assume data
> is committed without seeing a completed sync, which would be a design
> erro
To
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
cc
Subject
Re: Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] writes lost with zfs !
> I have some concerns here, from my experience in the past,
touching a
> file ( doing some IO ) will cause the ufs filesystem to failover,
unlike
> zfs where it did not ! Why the behaviour of zfs
updating file. Hence my concerns about data integrity. Please
explain.
thaks
Ayaz Anjum
Darren Dunham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
03/12/2007 05:45 AM
To
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
cc
Subject
Re: Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] writes lost with zfs !
> I have some
> I have some concerns here, from my experience in the past, touching a
> file ( doing some IO ) will cause the ufs filesystem to failover, unlike
> zfs where it did not ! Why the behaviour of zfs different than ufs ?
UFS always does synchronous metadata updates. So a 'touch' that creates
a fi
Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Recipients:
Manoj Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayaz Anjum
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject:
Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] writes lost with zfs !
Date:
03/08/2007 02:34:20 PM
Hello Manoj,
Thursday, March 8, 2007, 7:10:57 AM, you wrot
Any details on the use case ?
Such an option will clearly make any filesystem just crawl on so many
common operation.
So it's rather interesting to know who/what is ready to sacrifice so
much performance.
In exchange for what ?
Le 8 mars 07 à 21:19, Bruce Shaw a écrit :
Would a forcesyn
it's an absolute necessity
On 3/8/07, Roch Bourbonnais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Le 8 mars 07 à 20:08, Selim Daoud a écrit :
> robert,
> this applies only if you have full control on the application forsure
> ..but how do you do it if you don't own the application ... can you
> mount zfs with
>Would a forcesync flag be something of interest to the community ?
Yes.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Le 8 mars 07 à 20:08, Selim Daoud a écrit :
robert,
this applies only if you have full control on the application forsure
..but how do you do it if you don't own the application ... can you
mount zfs with forcedirectio flag ?
selim
ufs directio and O_DSYNC are different things.
Would a forc
robert,
this applies only if you have full control on the application forsure
..but how do you do it if you don't own the application ... can you
mount zfs with forcedirectio flag ?
selim
On 3/8/07, Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Manoj,
Thursday, March 8, 2007, 7:10:57 AM,
Hello Manoj,
Thursday, March 8, 2007, 7:10:57 AM, you wrote:
MJ> Ayaz Anjum wrote:
>> 2. with zfs mounted on one cluster node, i created a file and keeps it
>> updating every second, then i removed the fc cable, the writes are still
>> continuing to the file system, after 10 seconds i have put
13 matches
Mail list logo
