Would it be easier to ... 1) Change ZFS code to enable a sort of directIO emulation and then run various tests... or
2) Use Sun's performance team, which have all the experience in the world when it comes to performing benchmarks on Solaris and Oracle .. + a Dtrace master to drill down and see what the difference is between UFS and UFS/DIO... and where the real win lies. On 10/4/07, eric kustarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 3, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Dale Ghent wrote: > > > On Oct 3, 2007, at 5:21 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > > > >> Slightly off-topic, in looking at some field data this morning > >> (looking > >> for something completely unrelated) I notice that the use of directio > >> on UFS is declining over time. I'm not sure what that means... > >> hopefully > >> not more performance escalations... > > > > Sounds like someone from ZFS team needs to get with someone from > > Oracle/MySQL/Postgres and get the skinny on how the IO rubber->road > > boundary should look, because it doesn't sound like there's a > > definitive or at least a sure answer here. > > I've done that already (Oracle, Postgres, JavaDB, etc.). Because the > holy grail of "directI/O" is an overloaded term, we don't really know > where the win within "directI/O" lies. In any event, it seems the > only way to get a definitive answer here is to prototype a no caching > property... > > eric > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
