On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 03:47:31PM +0100, Peter Schuller wrote: > > http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine > > So just to confirm; disabling the zil *ONLY* breaks the semantics of fsync() > and synchronous writes from the application perspective; it will do *NOTHING* > to lessen the correctness guarantee of ZFS itself, including in the case of a > power outtage?
That is correct. ZFS, with or without the ZIL, will *always* maintain consistent on-disk state and will *always* preserve the ordering of events on-disk. That is, if an application makes two changes to the filesystem, first A, then B, ZFS will *never* show B on-disk without also showing A. > This makes it more reasonable to actually disable the zil. But still, > personally I would like to be able to tell the NFS server to simply not be > standards compliant, so that I can keep the correct semantics on the lower > layer (ZFS), and disable the behavior at the level where I actually want it > disabled (the NFS server). This would be nice, simply to make it easier to do apples-to-apples comparisons with other NFS server implementations that don't honor the correct semantics (Linux, I'm looking at you). --Bill _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
