Indeed, I was having a think about it myself on the train back home last night and i concluded that any useful caching would already be done on the LDom itself.
Maybe we should point out this nice side-effect when using mkfile for creating the virtual disk files... Anyhow, as I store my virtial disk files on separate ZFS filesystems (to allow snapshotting), I'm now wondering if there are any quick and easy optimisations available there (bigger block sizes etc). I already set noatime on creation as it seemed a fairly obvious win. -Steve --- Probably a bad idea, as the images files would normally be larger than the amount of RAM allocated to the control/service domain. *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Octave J. Orgeron Solaris Systems Engineer *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* ----- Original Message ---- To: ldoms-discuss at opensolaris.org Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 1:39:10 PM Subject: [ldoms-discuss] should we allow the service domain to cache ldom virtual disk files? When we create ldoms, we use mkfile to create the files for ldom virtual disks. The mkfile command automatically sets the sticky bit which turns off file caching. Would we experience better performance if we removed the sticky bit and allowed the service domain to cache the file to memory or is it too big to usefully cache anyway? -Steve _______________________________________________ ldoms-discuss mailing list ldoms-discuss at opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ldoms-discuss __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
