On Nov 21, 2006, at 1:36 PM, Joe Little wrote:
On 11/21/06, Matthew B Sweeney - Sun Microsystems Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Roch,Am I barking up the wrong tree? Or is ZFS over NFS not the right solution?I strongly believe it is.. We just are at odds as to some philosophy. Either we need NVRAM backed storage between NFS and ZFS, battery backed-memory that can survive other subsystem failure, or a change in the code path to allow some discretion here. Currently, the third option, 6280630, ZIL syncronicity, or as I reference it, sync_deferred functionality. A combination is best, but the sooner this arrives, the better for anyone who needs a general purpose file server / NAS that compares anywhere near to the competion.
I had heard that some stuff in the latest OS and coming in Sol10 U3 should greatly help in NFS/ZFS performance. Something to do with ZFS not synching the entire pool on every sync but just the stuff needed or something like that. I heard it kind of 2nd or 3rd hand so cannot be to detailed in my description. Can someone here "in the know" confirm that this is so (or not)?
Thanks Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
