On 20 feb 2010, at 02.34, Rob Logan wrote: > >> An UPS plus disabling zil, or disabling synchronization, could possibly >> achieve the same result (or maybe better) iops wise. > Even with the fastest slog, disabling zil will always be faster... > (less bytes to move) > >> This would probably work given that your computer never crashes >> in an uncontrolled manner. If it does, some data may be lost >> (and possibly the entire pool lost, if you are unlucky). > the pool would never be at risk, but when your server > reboots, its clients will be confused that things > it sent, and the server promised it had saved, are gone. > For some clients, this small loss might be the loss of their > entire dataset.
No, the entire pool shouldn't be at risk, you are right of course, I don't know what I was thinking. Sorry! /ragge _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
