Matthew Ahrens writes:
> Robert Milkowski wrote:
> > Hello Richard,
> >
> > Thursday, August 31, 2006, 8:17:41 AM, you wrote:
> >
> > RLH> Are both of you doing a umount/mount (or export/import, I guess) of
> > the
> > RLH> source filesystem before both first and second test? Otherwise,
> > there might
> > RLH> still be a fair bit of cached data left over from the first test,
> > which would
> > RLH> give the 2nd an unfair advantage. I'm fairly sure unmounting a
> > filesystem
> > RLH> invalidates all cached pages associated with files on that
> > filesystem, as well
> > RLH> as any cached [iv]node entries, all of which in needed to ensure both
> > tests
> > RLH> are starting from the most similar situation possible. Ideally, all
> > this would
> > RLH> even be done in single-user mode, so that nothing else could
> > interfere.
> >
> > IIRC unmounting ZFS file system won't flush its caches - you've got to
> > export entire pool.
>
> That's correct. And I did ensure that the data was not cached before
> each of my tests.
>
> --matt
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Matt ?
It seems to me that (at least in the past) unmount would
actually cause the data to not be accessible (read would
issue an I/O) even if potentially the associated memory with
previous cached data was not quite reaped back to the OS.
I'm currently going on
umount to clear the cache.
export to free up the memory.
Does this sound correct ?
-r
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
