[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > I feel like we're being hung out to dry here. I've got 70TB on 9 various > Solaris 10 u4 servers, with different data sets. All of these are NFS > servers. Two servers have a ton of small files, with a lot of read and > write updating, and NFS performance on these are abysmal. ZFS is installed > on SAN array's (my first mistake). I will test by disabling the ZIL, but if > it turns out the ZIL needs to be on a separate device, we're hosed.
If you're using SAN arrays, you should be in good shape. I'll echo what Vincent Fox said about using either zfs_nocacheflush=1 (which is in S10U4), or setting the arrays to ignore the cache flush (SYNC_CACHE) requests. We do the latter here, and it makes a huge difference for NFS clients, basically putting the ZIL in NVRAM. However, I'm also unhappy about having to wait for S10U6 for the separate ZIL and/or cache features of ZFS. The lack of NV ZIL on our new Thumper makes it painfully slow over NFS for the large number of file create/delete type of workload. Here's a question: Would having the client mount with "-o nocto" have the same effect (for that particular client) as disabling the ZIL on the server? If so, it might be less drastic than losing the ZIL for everyone. Regards, Marion _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
