On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Richard Elling
richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:10 AM, Yi Zhang wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to achieve the same effect of UFS directio on ZFS and here
is what I did:
Solaris UFS directio has three functions:
1. improved async code
Le 7 févr. 2011 à 06:25, Richard Elling a écrit :
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:10 AM, Yi Zhang wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to achieve the same effect of UFS directio on ZFS and here
is what I did:
Solaris UFS directio has three functions:
1. improved async code path
2. multiple
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Roch roch.bourbonn...@oracle.com wrote:
Le 7 févr. 2011 à 06:25, Richard Elling a écrit :
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:10 AM, Yi Zhang wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to achieve the same effect of UFS directio on ZFS and here
is what I did:
Solaris UFS directio has
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Yi Zhang yizhan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Richard Elling
richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote:
Solaris UFS directio has three functions:
1. improved async code path
2. multiple concurrent writers
3. no buffering
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Brandon High bh...@freaks.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Yi Zhang yizhan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Richard Elling
richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote:
Solaris UFS directio has three functions:
1. improved async code path
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Yi Zhang yizhan...@gmail.com wrote:
I already set primarycache to metadata, and I'm not concerned about
caching reads, but caching writes. It appears writes are indeed cached
judging from the time of 2.a) compared to UFS+directio. More
specifically,
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Brandon High bh...@freaks.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Yi Zhang yizhan...@gmail.com wrote:
I already set primarycache to metadata, and I'm not concerned about
caching reads, but caching writes. It appears writes are indeed cached
judging from the
Maybe I didn't make my intention clear. UFS with directio is
reasonably close to a raw disk from my application's perspective: when
the app writes to a file location, no buffering happens. My goal is to
find a way to duplicate this on ZFS.
There really is no need to do this on ZFS. Using an
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Brandon High bh...@freaks.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Yi Zhang yizhan...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe I didn't make my intention clear. UFS with directio is
reasonably close to a raw disk from my application's perspective: when
the app writes to a file
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Yi Zhang yizhan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Brandon High bh...@freaks.com wrote:
Maybe I didn't make my intention clear. UFS with directio is
reasonably close to a raw disk from my application's perspective: when
the app writes to a file
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Yi Zhang yizhan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Brandon High bh...@freaks.com wrote:
Maybe I didn't make my intention clear. UFS with directio is
reasonably close to a
Le 7 févr. 2011 à 17:08, Yi Zhang a écrit :
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Roch roch.bourbonn...@oracle.com wrote:
Le 7 févr. 2011 à 06:25, Richard Elling a écrit :
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:10 AM, Yi Zhang wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to achieve the same effect of UFS directio on ZFS and
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. 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
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Yi Zhang yizhan...@gmail.com wrote:
Please see my previous email for a high-level discussion of my
application. I know that I don't really need O_DSYNC. The reason why I
tried that is to
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. you must have a goal beyond the elimination of
buffering in
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
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Yi Zhang yizhan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com wrote:
ZFS cannot not buffer. The reason is that ZFS likes to batch transactions
On 02/07/11 12:49, Yi Zhang wrote:
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.
if batching
On 2/7/2011 1:10 PM, Yi Zhang wrote:
[snip]
This is actually what I did for 2.a) in my original post. My concern
there is that ZFS' internal write buffering makes it hard to get a
grip on my application's behavior. I want to present my application's
raw I/O performance without too much outside
On Feb 7, 2011, at 1:10 PM, Yi Zhang wrote:
This is actually what I did for 2.a) in my original post. My concern
there is that ZFS' internal write buffering makes it hard to get a
grip on my application's behavior. I want to present my application's
raw I/O performance without too much
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:10 AM, Yi Zhang wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to achieve the same effect of UFS directio on ZFS and here
is what I did:
Solaris UFS directio has three functions:
1. improved async code path
2. multiple concurrent writers
3. no buffering
Of the
Hi all,
I'm trying to achieve the same effect of UFS directio on ZFS and here
is what I did:
1. Set the primarycache of zfs to metadata and secondarycache to none,
recordsize to 8K (to match the unit size of writes)
2. Run my test program (code below) with different options and measure
the
22 matches
Mail list logo
