>> UFS is a totally different issue, sync writes are always sync'ed. >> >> I don't work for Sun, but it would be unusual for a company to accept >> willful negligence as a policy. Ambulance chasing lawyers love that >> kind of thing. > > The Thor replaces a geriatric Enterprise system running Solaris 8 over > UFS. For these workloads it beat the pants out of our current setup > and somehow the "but you're safer now" argument doesn't go over very > well :) > > We are under the impression that a setup that server NFS over UFS has > the same assurance level than a setup using "ZFS without ZIL". Is this > impression false?
That impression is false! No ZIL is especially bad for NFS applications. If you have disabled ZIL and you reboot your NFS server while a client is writing you will have writes that have "disappeared" and no error will be logged on the server or the client. Thus the result till be corrupted files and no way to know that the are corrupted. UFS (with or without the log) will behave as ZFS with ZIL. The ZIL is _not_ optional as the log is in UFS. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
