Roch - PAE wrote:
> Neil Perrin writes:
> >
> >
> > Joe Little wrote:
> > > On Nov 16, 2007 9:13 PM, Neil Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Joe,
> > >>
> > >> I don't think adding a slog helped in this case. In fact I
> > >> believe it made performance worse. Previously the ZIL w
Joe Little wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2007 10:41 PM, Neil Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Joe Little wrote:
>>> On Nov 16, 2007 9:13 PM, Neil Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joe,
I don't think adding a slog helped in this case. In fact I
believe it made performance worse. P
On Nov 19, 2007 9:41 AM, Roch - PAE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Neil Perrin writes:
> >
> >
> > Joe Little wrote:
> > > On Nov 16, 2007 9:13 PM, Neil Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Joe,
> > >>
> > >> I don't think adding a slog helped in this case. In fact I
> > >> believe it m
Neil Perrin writes:
>
>
> Joe Little wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 2007 9:13 PM, Neil Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Joe,
> >>
> >> I don't think adding a slog helped in this case. In fact I
> >> believe it made performance worse. Previously the ZIL would be
> >> spread out over all devi
On Nov 18, 2007 1:44 PM, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> one more thing...
>
>
> Joe Little wrote:
> > I have historically noticed that in ZFS, when ever there is a heavy
> > writer to a pool via NFS, the reads can held back (basically paused).
> > An example is a RAID10 pool of 6 disks
one more thing...
Joe Little wrote:
> I have historically noticed that in ZFS, when ever there is a heavy
> writer to a pool via NFS, the reads can held back (basically paused).
> An example is a RAID10 pool of 6 disks, whereby a directory of files
> including some large 100+MB in size being writt
On Nov 16, 2007 10:41 PM, Neil Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Joe Little wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 2007 9:13 PM, Neil Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Joe,
> >>
> >> I don't think adding a slog helped in this case. In fact I
> >> believe it made performance worse. Previously the ZIL woul
Joe Little wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2007 9:13 PM, Neil Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Joe,
>>
>> I don't think adding a slog helped in this case. In fact I
>> believe it made performance worse. Previously the ZIL would be
>> spread out over all devices but now all synchronous traffic
>> is direc
On Nov 16, 2007 9:17 PM, Joe Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2007 9:13 PM, Neil Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Joe,
> >
> > I don't think adding a slog helped in this case. In fact I
> > believe it made performance worse. Previously the ZIL would be
> > spread out over all dev
On Nov 16, 2007 9:13 PM, Neil Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe,
>
> I don't think adding a slog helped in this case. In fact I
> believe it made performance worse. Previously the ZIL would be
> spread out over all devices but now all synchronous traffic
> is directed at one device (and every
Joe,
I don't think adding a slog helped in this case. In fact I
believe it made performance worse. Previously the ZIL would be
spread out over all devices but now all synchronous traffic
is directed at one device (and everything is synchronous in NFS).
Mind you 15MB/s seems a bit on the slow side
I have historically noticed that in ZFS, when ever there is a heavy
writer to a pool via NFS, the reads can held back (basically paused).
An example is a RAID10 pool of 6 disks, whereby a directory of files
including some large 100+MB in size being written can cause other
clients over NFS to pause
12 matches
Mail list logo
