Le 22 mai 07 à 03:18, Frank Cusack a écrit :
On May 21, 2007 6:30:42 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:21:40PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:11:36PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:09:46PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
> > But still, how is tar/SSH any more multi-threaded than tar/NFS?
>
> It's not that it is, but that NFS sync semantics and ZFS sync
> semantics conspire against single-threaded performance.
What's why we have "set zfs:zfs_nocacheflush = 1" in /etc/system.
But,
that's only helps ZFS. Is there something similar for NFS?
NFS's semantics for open() and friends is that they are synchronous,
whereas POSIX's semantics are that they are not. You're paying for a
sync() after every open.
nocto?
I think it's after every client close. But on the server side, there
are lots of operations
that also requires a commit. So nocto is not the silver bullet.
-r
_______________________________________________
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
