[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Well, I don't know about his particular case, but many QFS clients > >have found the separation of da ta and metadata to be invaluable. The > >primary reason is that it avoids disk seeks. We have QFS cust omers who > >are running at over 90% of theoretical bandwidth on a medium-sized set > >of FibreChannel co ntrollers and need to maintain that streaming rate. > >Taking a seek to update the on-disk inodes once > >a minute or so slowed down transfers enough that QFS was invented. > ;-) > > That does not answer th equestion I asked; since ZFS is a copy-on-write > filesystem, there's no fixed inode location and streaming writes should > always be possible. > > So, in theory ZFS can do this and mix metadata and data. That's why > I asked for any preactival input into this matter. > > There are, I think, four different outcomes possible of such an > experiment and subsequent analysis: > > ZFS does just fine, thank you > ZFS doesn't measure up but can be fixed without splitting meta data. > ZFS doesn't measure up and can only be fixed by allowing a logical > split > ZFS doesn't measure up and cannot be fixed > > My money is on #2.
I strongly bet for #3 (assuming "logical split" means "data+inode" split) based on real-world experience with other products from other vendors. ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;) _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
