On 7/31/06, Dale Ghent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 31, 2006, at 8:07 PM, eric kustarz wrote:
>
> The 2.6.x Linux client is much nicer... one thing fixed was the
> client doing too many commits (which translates to fsyncs on the
> server). I would still recommend the Solaris client but i'm sure
> that's no surprise. But if you'r'e stuck on Linux, upgrade to the
> latest stable 2.6.x and i'd be curious if it was better.
I'd love to be on kernel 2.6 but due to the philosophical stance
towards OpenAFS of some people on the lkml list[1], moving to 2.6 is
a tough call for us to do. But that's another story for another list.
The fact is that I'm stuck on 2.4 for the time being and I'm having
problems with a Solaris/ZFS NFS server that I'm (and Jan) are not
having with Solaris/UFS and (in my case) Linux/XFS NFS server.
[1] https://lists.openafs.org/pipermail/openafs-devel/2006-July/
014041.html
/dale
First, OpenAFS 1.4 works just fine with 2.6 based kernels. We've
already standardized on that over 2.4 kernels (deprecated) at
Stanford. Second, I had similar fsync fatality when it came to NFS
clients (linux or solaris mind you) and non-local backed clients using
ZFS on a Solaris 10U2 (or B40+) server. My case was iscsi and it was
chalked up to low latency on iSCSI, but I still to this day find NFS
write performance on small or multititudes of files at a time with ZFS
as a back end to be rather iffy. Its perfectly fast for NFS reads and
and its always speedly local to the box, but the NFS/ZFS integration
seems problematic. I can always test w/ UFS and get great performance.
Its the roundtrips with many fsyncs to the backend storage that ZFS
requires for commits that get ya.
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
