Robert,
On 4/27/07, Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Wee,
Thursday, April 26, 2007, 4:21:00 PM, you wrote:
WYT> On 4/26/07, cedric briner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> okay let'say that it is not. :)
>> Imagine that I setup a box:
>> - with Solaris
>> - with many HDs (directly attached).
>> - use ZFS as the FS
>> - export the Data with NFS
>> - on an UPS.
>>
>> Then after reading the :
>>
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide#ZFS_and_Complex_Storage_Considerations
>> I wonder if there is a way to tell the OS to ignore the fsync flush
>> commands since they are likely to survive a power outage.
WYT> Cedric,
WYT> You do not want to ignore syncs from ZFS if your harddisk is directly
WYT> attached to the server. As the document mentioned, that is really for
WYT> Complex Storage with NVRAM where flush is not necessary.
What??
Setting zil_disable=1 has nothing to do with NVRAM in storage arrays.
It disables ZIL in ZFS wich means that if application calls fsync() or
opens a file with O_DSYNC, etc. then ZFS won't honor it (return
immediatelly without commiting to stable storage).
Wait a minute. Are we talking about zil_disable or zfs_noflush (or
zfs_nocacheflush)?
The article quoted was about configuring the array to ignore flush
commands or device specific zfs_noflush, not zil_disable.
I agree that zil_disable is okay from FS view (correctness still
depends on the application), but zfs_noflush is dangerous.
--
Just me,
Wire ...
Blog: <prstat.blogspot.com>
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
