> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 03:47:31PM +0100, Peter Schuller wrote: >> > http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine >> >> So just to confirm; disabling the zil *ONLY* breaks the semantics of >> fsync() >> and synchronous writes from the application perspective; it will do >> *NOTHING* >> to lessen the correctness guarantee of ZFS itself, including in the case >> of a >> power outtage? > > That is correct. ZFS, with or without the ZIL, will *always* maintain > consistent on-disk state and will *always* preserve the ordering of > events on-disk. That is, if an application makes two changes to the > filesystem, first A, then B, ZFS will *never* show B on-disk without > also showing A. >
So then, this begs the question Why do I want this ZIL animal at all? >> This makes it more reasonable to actually disable the zil. But still, >> personally I would like to be able to tell the NFS server to simply not be >> standards compliant, so that I can keep the correct semantics on the lower >> layer (ZFS), and disable the behavior at the level where I actually want >> it >> disabled (the NFS server). > > This would be nice, simply to make it easier to do apples-to-apples > comparisons with other NFS server implementations that don't honor the > correct semantics (Linux, I'm looking at you). is that a glare or a leer or a sneer ? :-) dc _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
