Thomas Nau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
fflush(fp);
fsync(fileno(fp));
fclose(fp);
and check errors.
(It's remarkable how often people get the above sequence wrong and only
do something like fsync(fileno(fp)); fclose(fp);
Thanks for clarifying! Seems I really need to
_FIOSATIME - why doesn't zfs support this (assuming I didn't just miss it)?
Might be handy for backups.
Could/should zfs support a new ioctl, constrained if needed to files of
zero size, that sets an explicit (and fixed) blocksize for a particular
file? That might be useful for performance in
Kangurek wrote:
Thanks for info.
My idea was to traverse changing filesystem, now I see that it will not
work.
I will try to traverse snapshots. Zreplicate will:
1. do snapshot @replicate_leatest and
2. send data to snapshot @replicate_leatest
3. wait X sec ( X = 20 )
4. remove
On March 23, 2007 11:06:33 PM -0700 Adam Leventhal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 11:28:19AM -0700, Frank Cusack wrote:
I'm in a way still hoping that it's a iSCSI related Problem as
detecting dead hosts in a network can be a non trivial problem and it
takes quite some time
Matthew Ahrens wrote On 03/24/07 12:13,:
Kangurek wrote:
Thanks for info.
My idea was to traverse changing filesystem, now I see that it will
not work.
I will try to traverse snapshots. Zreplicate will:
1. do snapshot @replicate_leatest and
2. send data to snapshot @replicate_leatest
3.
Neil Perrin wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what will be slow about taking snapshots, but one
aspect might be that we have to suspend the intent log (see call to
zil_suspend() in dmu_objset_snapshot_one()). I've been meaning to
change that for a while now -- just let the snapshot have the
Matthew Ahrens wrote On 03/24/07 12:36,:
Neil Perrin wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what will be slow about taking snapshots, but
one aspect might be that we have to suspend the intent log (see call
to zil_suspend() in dmu_objset_snapshot_one()). I've been meaning to
change that for a while
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 11:20:38AM -0700, Frank Cusack wrote:
iscsi doesn't use TCP, does it? Anyway, the problem is really transport
independent.
It does use TCP. Were you thinking UDP?
or its own IP protocol. I wouldn't have thought iSCSI would want to be
subject to the vagaries of
