On Mon, February 7, 2011 14:49, Yi Zhang wrote: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Bill Sommerfeld <sommerf...@alum.mit.edu> > wrote: >> On 02/07/11 11:49, Yi Zhang wrote: >>> >>> The reason why I >>> tried that is to get the side effect of no buffering, which is my >>> ultimate goal. >> >> ultimate = "final". Â you must have a goal beyond the elimination of >> buffering in the filesystem. >> >> if the writes are made durable by zfs when you need them to be durable, >> why >> does it matter that it may buffer data while it is doing so? >> >> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â - >> Bill > > If buffering is on, the running time of my app doesn't reflect the > actual I/O cost. My goal is to accurately measure the time of I/O. > With buffering on, ZFS would batch up a bunch of writes and change > both the original I/O activity and the time.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to measure (which seems to be your top priority). Achievable performance with ZFS would be better using suitable caching; normally that's the benchmark statistic people would care about. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
