Le 15 nov. 08 à 08:49, Nicholas Lee a écrit :
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In short, separate logs with rotating rust may reduce sync write
latency by
perhaps 2-10x on an otherwise busy system. Using write optimized SSDs
will reduce sync
Nicholas Lee wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Richard Elling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In short, separate logs with rotating rust may reduce sync write
latency by
perhaps 2-10x on an otherwise busy system. Using write optimized SSDs
will
Neil Perrin wrote:
I wouldn't expect any improvement using a separate disk slice for the Intent
Log
unless that disk was much faster and was otherwise largely idle. If it was
heavily
used then I'd expect quite the performance degradation as the disk head
bounces
around between slices.
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
In short, separate logs with rotating rust may reduce sync write latency by
perhaps 2-10x on an otherwise busy system. Using write optimized SSDs
will reduce sync write latency by perhaps 10x in all cases. This is one of
I've got an X4500/thumper that is mainly used as an NFS server.
It has been discussed in the past that NFS performance with ZFS can be slow
(when running tar to expand an archive with lots of files, for example.) My
understanding is the reason that zfs/nfs is slow in this case is because it is
I wouldn't expect any improvement using a separate disk slice for the Intent Log
unless that disk was much faster and was otherwise largely idle. If it was
heavily
used then I'd expect quite the performance degradation as the disk head bounces
around between slices. Separate intent logs are
