Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance considerations (Linux vs Solaris)

2007-12-10 Thread msl
Ok, i have proposed, so, i'm trying to implement it. :)
 I hope you can (at least) criticizing it. :))
 The document is here: http://www.posix.brte.com.br/blog/?p=89
 It is not complete, i'm running some tests yet, and analyzing the results. But 
i think you can look and contribute with tome thoughts already.
  It was nice to see the write performance for the iSCSI protocol and the 
NFSv3. Why iSCSI was "much" better? Why the read performance was the "same"?  
All guarantees that i have with NFS i have with iSCSI?
 Please, comment it!

 Thanks a lot for your time!
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss


[zfs-discuss] NFS performance considerations (Linux vs Solaris)

2007-11-20 Thread msl
Hello all...
 I think all of you agree that "performance" is a great topic in NFS. 
 So, when we talk about NFS and ZFS we imagine a great combination/solution. 
But one is not dependent on another, actually are two well distinct 
technologies. ZFS has a lot of features that all we know about, and "maybe", 
all of us want in a NFS share (maybe not). The point is: Two technologies with 
diferent priorities.
 So, what i think is important, is a "document" (here on NFS/ZFS discuss), that 
lists and explains the ZFS features that have a "real" performance impact. I 
know that there is the solarisinternals wiki about ZFS/NFS integration, but 
what i think is really important is a comparison between Linux and Solaris/ZFS 
on server side.
 That would be very useful to see for example, what "consistency" i have with 
Linux and (XFS, ext3, etc), with "that" performance. And "how" can i configure 
a similar NFS service on solaris/ZFS. 
 Here we have some information about it: 
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
 but there is no relation with Linux, what i think is important.
 What i do mean, is that the people that knows a lot about the NFS protocol, 
and about the filesystem features, should make such comparison (to facilitate 
the adoption and users' comparison). I think there are many users comparing 
oranges with apples.
 Another example (correct me if i am wrong), Until the kernel 2.4.20 (at 
least), the default export option for sync/async was "async" (in solaris i 
think always was "sync"). Another point was about the "commit" operation in 
vers2, that was not implemented, the server just reply with an "OK", but the 
data was not in stable storage yet (here the ZIL and the roch blog entry is 
excellent).
 That's it, i'm proposing the creation of a "matrix/table" with features and 
performance impact, as well as a comparison with other 
implementations/implications.
 Thanks very much for your time, and sorry for the long post.

 Leal.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss