It seems though that the critical feature we need was optional in the
SBC-2 spec.
So we still need some development to happen on the storage end.
But we'll get there...
Le 19 déc. 06 à 20:59, Jason J. W. Williams a écrit :
Hi Roch,
That sounds like a most excellent resolution to me. :-) I believe
Engenio devices support SBC-2. It seems to me making intelligent
decisions for end-users is generally a good policy.
Best Regards,
Jason
On 12/19/06, Roch - PAE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jason J. W. Williams writes:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> It would be nice if you could tell ZFS to turn off fsync() for ZIL
> writes on a per-zpool basis. That being said, I'm not sure
there's a
> consensus on that...and I'm sure not smart enough to be a ZFS
> contributor. :-)
>
> The behavior is a reality we had to deal with and workaround, so I
> posted the instructions to hopefully help others in a similar
boat.
>
> I think this is a valuable discussion point though...at least
for us. :-)
>
> Best Regards,
> Jason
>
To Summarize:
Today, ZFS sends a ioctl to the storage that says flush the
write cache, while what it really wants is, make sure data
is on stable storage. The Storage should then flush or not
the cache depending on if it is considered stable or not
(only the storage knows that).
Soon ZFS (more precisely SD) will be sending a 'qualified'
ioctl to clarify the requested behavior.
In parallel, Storage vendor shall be implementing that
qualified ioctl. ZFS Customers of third party storage
probably have more influence to get those vendors to support
the qualified behavior.
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6462690
With SD fixed and Storage vendor support, there will be no
more need to tune anything.
-r
> On 12/15/06, Jeremy Teo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The instructions will tell you how to configure the array
to ignore
> > > SCSI cache flushes/syncs on Engenio arrays. If anyone has
additional
> > > instructions for other arrays, please let me know and I'll
be happy to
> > > add them!
> >
> > Wouldn't it be more appropriate to allow the administrator to
disable
> > ZFS from issuing the write cache enable command during a commit?
> > (assuming expensive high end battery backed cache etc etc)
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Jeremy
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
