Hello can, Thursday, November 15, 2007, 2:54:21 AM, you wrote:
cyg> The major difference between ZFS and WAFL in this regard is that cyg> ZFS batch-writes-back its data to disk without first aggregating cyg> it in NVRAM (a subsidiary difference is that ZFS maintains a cyg> small-update log which WAFL's use of NVRAM makes unnecessary). cyg> Decoupling the implementation from NVRAM makes ZFS usable on cyg> arbitrary rather than specialized platforms, and that without cyg> doubt constitutes a significant advantage by increasing the cyg> available options (in both platform and price) for those cyg> installations that require the kind of protection (and ease of cyg> management) that both WAFL and ZFS offer and that don't require cyg> the level of performance that WAFL provides and ZFS often may not cyg> (the latter hasn't gotten much air time here, and while it can be cyg> discussed to some degree in the abstract a better approach would cyg> be to have some impartial benchmarks to look at, because the cyg> on-disk block layouts do differ significantly and sometimes cyg> subtly even if the underlying approaches don't). Well, ZFS allows you to put its ZIL on a separate device which could be NVRAM. -- Best regards, Robert mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
