On Mar 31, 2010, at 5:39 AM, Robert Milkowski <mi...@task.gda.pl> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Karsten Weiss
Use something other than Open/Solaris with ZFS as an NFS
server? :)
I don't think you'll find the performance you paid for with ZFS and
Solaris at this time. I've been trying to more than a year, and
watching dozens, if not hundreds of threads.
Getting half-ways decent performance from NFS and ZFS is impossible
unless you disable the ZIL.
Well, for lots of environments disabling ZIL is perfectly acceptable.
And frankly the reason you get better performance out of the box on
Linux as NFS server is that it actually behaves like with disabled
ZIL - so disabling ZIL on ZFS for NFS shares is no worse than using
Linux here or any other OS which behaves in the same manner.
Actually it makes it better as even if ZIL is disabled ZFS
filesystem is always consisten on a disk and you still get all the
other benefits from ZFS.
What would be useful though is to be able to easily disable ZIL per
dataset instead of OS wide switch.
This feature has already been coded and tested and awaits a formal
process to be completed in order to get integrated. Should be rather
sooner than later.
Well being fair to Linux the default for NFS exports is to export them
'sync' now which syncs to disk on close or fsync. It has been many
years before they exported 'async' by default. Now if Linux admins set
their shares 'async' and loose important data then it's operator error
and not Linux's fault.
If apps don't care about their data consistency and don't sync their
data I don't see why the file server has to care for them. I mean if
it were a local file system and the machine rebooted the data would be
lost too. Should we care more for data written remotely then locally?
-Ross
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
