On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 10:45 -0600, Neil Perrin wrote: > Yes: 6280630 zil synchronicity > > Though personally I've been unhappy with the exposure that zil_disable has > got. > It was originally meant for debug purposes only. So providing an official > way to make synchronous behaviour asynchronous is to me dangerous.
It seems far more dangerous to only provide a global knob instead of a local knob. I want it in conjunction with bulk operations (like an ON "nightly" build, database reloads, etc.) where the response to a partial failure will be to rm -rf and start over. Any time spent waiting for intermediate states of the filesystem to be committed to stable store is wasted time. > > Once Admins start to disable the ZIL for whole pools because the extra > > performance is too tempting, wouldn't it be the lesser evil to let them > > disable it on a per filesystem basis? Agreed. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
