The only obvious thing would be if the exported ZFS
filesystems where initially mounted at a point in time when
zil_disable was non-null.
The stack trace that is relevant is:
sd_send_scsi_SYNCHRONIZE_CACHE
sd`sdioctl+0x1770
zfs`vdev_d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> [b]How the ZFS striped on 7 slices of FC-SATA LUN via NFS worked [u]146 times
> faster[/u] than the ZFS on 1 slice of the same LUN via NFS???[/b]
Well, I do have more info to share on this issue, though how it worked
faster in that test still remains a mystery. Folks ma
Hello Leon,
Sunday, February 11, 2007, 5:53:48 PM, you wrote:
LK> Jeff,
LK> thank you for the explanation but it's hard to me to accept it because:
LK> 1.You described a different configuration: 7 LUNs. Marion post
LK> was about 7 slices of the same LUN.
LK> 2.I never saw the storage controller
Jeff,
thank you for the explanation but it's hard to me to accept it because:
1.You described a different configuration: 7 LUNs. Marion post was about 7
slices of the same LUN.
2.I never saw the storage controller with cache-per-LUN setting. Cache size
doesn't depend on number of LUNs IMHO, it'
