>> My first guess is the NFS vs array cache-flush issue. Have you >> configured the 6140 to ignore SYNCHRONIZE_CACHE requests? That'll >> make a huge difference for NFS clients of ZFS file servers. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > Doesn't setting zfs:zfs_nocacheflush=1 achieve the same result: > http://blogs.digitar.com/jjww/?itemid=44
Yes, it should. You're running a more modern (future) Solaris release than I've got here (10U3). > The 6140 has a non-volatile cache. Dunno if it's order-preserving though. Yikes. I didn't even want to think about that. For ZFS, I'd think it shouldn't matter, though. Either "the" ueber-block gets written, or it doesn't. One then only depends on the whole cache getting flushed to disk eventually, right? Marion _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
