Yes, I've tried NFS and CIFS. I wouldn't call this a problem though. This is the way it was designed to work to prevent loss of client data. If you want faster performance put a battery-backed RAID card in your system and turn on write-back caching on the card so that the RAM in the RAID controller effectively acts as your NVRAM. I've tested this and obviously get much better performance for small files. If you want to compare with other filesystems that don't guarantee your data, then as others have pointed out you can disable the ZIL and take your chances. Here you're no worst off than other os/fs implementations that lie to you when they tell you that they've committed your data to persistent storage and keep it in RAM and risk the failure modes associated with that. If you avoid remote filesystems like NFS/CIFS and run locally, then this is obviously not an issue.
Cameron -- On 11/22/06, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 22, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Al Hopper wrote: > No problem there! ZFS rocks. NFS/ZFS is a bad combination. Has anyone tried sharing a ZFS fs using samba or afs or something else besides nfs? Do we have the same issues? Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net _______________________________________________ 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
