I followed Anton's idea but didn't see any difference. My tests were repetitive PostMark runs, and each run was different. For instance, I didn't let PostMark delete the files once it finished, deleted the odd numbered ones by hand, put the rest in a different directory, re-run PostMark that failed on some operations due to lack of free space etc.
All these runs created more than half a TB of writes on a 72 GB volume. I don't want to make conclusions like "X is better than Y", I just wan't to verify whether aging substantially impacts recovery, I'm not interested in how much it does. And of course, the test environment is the same for all runs. My problems are 2: 1) I don't know how to properly age a file-system. As already said, I need traces of a decade's workload to properly do this, and to the best of my knowledge there is no easy way to do this automatically. 2) I know very little of ZFS. To be honest, I have no idea what to expect. Maybe I'm doing aging the wrong way or ZFS suffers from aging when is has to allocate blocks for writes/updates and not on recovery. Anyway, I've talked to my professor and told me not to investigate this any more. I have a 2 page draft of my report, just tell me if you want to have a look at it. Thanx for your help. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
