On 11/15/07 9:05 AM, "Robert Milkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. Like RAMSAN SSD http://www.superssd.com/products/ramsan-300/ It is the only FC attached, Battery-backed SSD that I know of, and we have dreams of clusterfication. Otherwise we would use one of those PCI-Express based NVRAM cards that are on the horizon. My initial results for lots of small files was very pleasing. I dream of a JBOD with lots of disks + something like this built into 3u. Too bad Sun's forthcoming JBODS probably wont have anything similar to this... -Andy _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
