That sounds like a really good idea. If you trust your high-end
arrays (EMC, Engenio, HDS, Sun, etc.), I would think that a pool-
level don't-fsync-ZIL would be very beneficial.
As stated in the article, doing this on a storage solution without
battery backed cache is a very bad idea. However, for large(er)
environments, I believe we'll see this request more-and-more.
I wonder what sort of performance change this would have for those
encountering NFS/ZFS performance issues? If you're using intelligent
arrays with NFS, I would think it could have a big impact.
On Dec 15, 2006, at 12:07 PM, Jeremy Teo wrote:
The instructions will tell you how to configure the array to ignore
SCSI cache flushes/syncs on Engenio arrays. If anyone has additional
instructions for other arrays, please let me know and I'll be
happy to
add them!
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to allow the administrator to disable
ZFS from issuing the write cache enable command during a commit?
(assuming expensive high end battery backed cache etc etc)
--
Regards,
Jeremy
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
-----
Gregory Shaw, IT Architect
IT CTO Group, Sun Microsystems Inc.
Phone: (303)-272-8817
500 Eldorado Blvd, UBRM02-157 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
Broomfield, CO 80021 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (home)
"When Microsoft writes an application for Linux, I've won." - Linus
Torvalds
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
