Le 22 mai 07 à 01:11, Nicolas Williams a écrit :
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:09:46PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
But still, how is tar/SSH any more multi-threaded than tar/NFS?
It's not that it is, but that NFS sync semantics and ZFS sync
semantics
conspire against single-threaded
Le 22 mai 07 à 01:21, Albert Chin a écrit :
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:11:36PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:09:46PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
But still, how is tar/SSH any more multi-threaded than tar/NFS?
It's not that it is, but that NFS sync semantics and
Le 22 mai 07 à 03:18, Frank Cusack a écrit :
On May 21, 2007 6:30:42 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:21:40PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:11:36PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:09:46PM -0500,
Le 22 mai 07 à 16:23, Dick Davies a écrit :
allyourbase
Take off every ZIL!
http://number9.hellooperator.net/articles/2007/02/12/zil-
communication
/allyourbase
Cause client corrupt but also database corruption and just about
anything that carefully manages data.
Yes the zpool will
On May 25, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Roch Bourbonnais wrote:
Le 22 mai 07 à 01:11, Nicolas Williams a écrit :
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:09:46PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
But still, how is tar/SSH any more multi-threaded than tar/NFS?
It's not that it is, but that NFS sync semantics and ZFS
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:21:40PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:11:36PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:09:46PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
But still, how is tar/SSH any more multi-threaded than tar/NFS?
It's not that it is, but that NFS
allyourbase
Take off every ZIL!
http://number9.hellooperator.net/articles/2007/02/12/zil-communication
/allyourbase
On 22/05/07, Albert Chin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:11:36PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:09:46PM -0500, Albert Chin
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 10:04:34AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:21:40PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:11:36PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:09:46PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
But still, how is tar/SSH any
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 13:23:48 -0800, Marion Hakanson wrote:
Albert Chin wrote:
Why can't the NFS performance match that of SSH?
My first guess is the NFS vs array cache-flush issue. Have you
configured the 6140 to ignore SYNCHRONIZE_CACHE requests? That'll
make a huge difference for NFS
We're testing an X4100M2, 4GB RAM, with a 2-port 4GB Fibre Channel
QLogic connected to a 2GB Fibre Channel 6140 array. The X4100M2 is
running OpenSolaris b63.
We have 8 drives in the Sun 6140 configured as individual RAID-0
arrays and have a ZFS RAID-Z2 array comprising 7 of the drives (for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Why can't the NFS performance match that of SSH?
Hi Albert,
My first guess is the NFS vs array cache-flush issue. Have you configured
the 6140 to ignore SYNCHRONIZE_CACHE requests? That'll make a huge difference
for NFS clients of ZFS file servers.
Also, you might
Albert Chin wrote:
Why can't the NFS performance match that of SSH?
One big reason is that the sending CPU has to do all the comparisons to
compute the list of files to be sent - it has to fetch the attributes
from both local and remote and compare timestamps. With ssh, local
processes at
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 02:55:18PM -0600, Robert Thurlow wrote:
Albert Chin wrote:
Why can't the NFS performance match that of SSH?
One big reason is that the sending CPU has to do all the comparisons to
compute the list of files to be sent - it has to fetch the attributes
from both local
Albert Chin wrote:
Well, there is no data on the file server as this is an initial copy,
Sorry Albert, I should have noticed that from your e-mail :-(
I think the bigger problem is the NFS performance penalty so we'll go
lurk somewhere else to find out what the problem is.
Is this with
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:09:46PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
But still, how is tar/SSH any more multi-threaded than tar/NFS?
It's not that it is, but that NFS sync semantics and ZFS sync semantics
conspire against single-threaded performance.
___
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:11:36PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:09:46PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
But still, how is tar/SSH any more multi-threaded than tar/NFS?
It's not that it is, but that NFS sync semantics and ZFS sync
semantics conspire against
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 04:55:35PM -0600, Robert Thurlow wrote:
Albert Chin wrote:
I think the bigger problem is the NFS performance penalty so we'll go
lurk somewhere else to find out what the problem is.
Is this with Solaris 10 or OpenSolaris on the client as well?
Client is RHEL
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:21:40PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:11:36PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:09:46PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
But still, how is tar/SSH any more multi-threaded than tar/NFS?
It's not that it is, but that NFS
On May 21, 2007 6:30:42 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:21:40PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:11:36PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:09:46PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
But still, how is tar/SSH any
19 matches
Mail list logo
