Paul Taysom wrote: > Network Appliance has been very successful with exactly this > architecture. > Paul
Perhaps alternative architectures exist that are just as good, if not better? Regards, Daniel >>>>Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/08/06 11:43 am >>> > > Paul Taysom wrote: > >>If I was worried about NFS performance, I'd rather use NVRAM as an >>immediate reply disk drive. > > > What makes you think that that is any faster than just having a fast > journal on the filesystem? It is certainly messier and adds two more > data copies. Plus it only helps NFS, what if there are other servers > on the node? And how do you maintain cache consistency with the data > written to the NFS reply journal when it has been acknowledged but is > not actually in the filesystem? > > On a snapshot, the NFS reply journal would be one more thing that > needs to be flushed, this is one more thing needing administration > attention. > > How much latency do you think is saved by a dedicated reply journal vs > a fast filesystem journal? I doubt it is as much as you suppose, it > is on the order of microseconds per write and the reply journal will > eventually have to pay double for that anyway. > > Also, somebody has to implement your NFS reply journal, further > messing > up knfsd. I am having a hard time seeing what is good about a > dedicated NFS reply journal. > > Regards, > > Daniel > _______________________________________________ Ocfs2-devel mailing list [email protected] http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
