On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Paul Fisher wrote:
Syslog is funny in that it does a lot of open/write/close cycles so that
rotate can work trivially. Those are meta-data updates and on NFS each
implies a COMMIT. This leads us back to the old solaris nfs over zfs
is slow discussion, where we talk
| Syslog is funny in that it does a lot of open/write/close cycles so
| that rotate can work trivially.
I don't know of any version of syslog that does this (certainly Solaris
10 U5 syslog does not). The traditional syslog(d) performance issue
is that it fsync()'s after writing each log message,
cs == Chris Siebenmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
cs (Some versions of syslog let you turn this off for specific
cs log files, which is very useful for high volume, low
cs importance ones.)
To ensure that kernel messages are written to disk promptly,
syslogd(8)
Hello,
We have a S10U5 server sharing with zfs sharing up NFS shares. While using
the nfs mount for a log destination for syslog for 20 or so busy mail servers
we have noticed that the throughput becomes severly degraded shortly. I have
tried disabling the zil, turning off cache flushing
Stephen Stogner wrote:
Hello,
We have a S10U5 server sharing with zfs sharing up NFS shares. While using
the nfs mount for a log destination for syslog for 20 or so busy mail servers
we have noticed that the throughput becomes severly degraded shortly. I have
tried disabling the zil,
Stephen Stogner wrote:
Hello,
We have a S10U5 server sharing with zfs sharing up NFS shares. While using
the nfs mount for a log destination for syslog for 20 or so busy mail servers
we have noticed that the throughput becomes severly degraded shortly. I have
tried disabling the zil,
True we could have all the syslog data be directed towards the host but the
underlying issue remains the same with the performance hit. We have used nfs
shares for log hosts and mail hosts and we are looking towards using a zfs
based mail store with nfs moutnts from x mail servers but if
Stephen Stogner wrote:
True we could have all the syslog data be directed towards the host but the
underlying issue remains the same with the performance hit. We have used nfs
shares for log hosts and mail hosts and we are looking towards using a zfs
based mail store with nfs moutnts from
Stephen Stogner wrote:
True we could have all the syslog data be directed towards the host but the
underlying issue remains the same with the performance hit. We have used nfs
shares for log hosts and mail hosts and we are looking towards using a zfs
based mail store with nfs moutnts from
