>>>>> "jl" == James Lever <j...@jamver.id.au> writes:
jl> if I had disabled the ZIL, writes would have to go direct to
jl> disk (not ZIL) before returning, which would potentially be
jl> even slower than ZIL on zpool.
no, I'm all but certain you are confused.
jl> Has anybody been measuring the IOPS and latency of their SSDs
you might try:
iostat -xcnXTdz c3t31d0 1
I haven't done this before though.
jl> One of the developers here had explicitly performed tests to
jl> check these similar assumptions and found no evidence that the
jl> Linux/XFS sync implementation to be lacking even though there
jl> were previous issues with it in one kernel revision.
Did he perform the same test on the one kernel revision with
``issues'', and if so what ``issues'' did the test find?
Also note that it's not only Linux/XFS which must be tested but knfs
and LVM2 as well.
I'm not saying it's broken, only that I've yet to hear of someone
using a decisive test and getting conclusive results---there are only
anecdotal war stories and speculations about how one might test.
pgpKzUXlRl5rG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
