Hello;
My objective is very simple. To put forward an effective argument
against the use (and cost) of Veritas Foundation Suite i.e. VxVm and
VxFS, prefering the cost free Solaris 9's SVM and ufs combination instead.
I was taught the following a long time ago...
ufs metadata is updated for each ufs block written while metadata is
updated only for each extent written for vxfs.
The above SEEMS to make vxfs a little more efficient doesn't it?
My argument thus far has been to try to convince the audience that ufs
excels in RANDOM I/O and for small to medium file sizes while VxFS
outperforms ufs only in large sequential I/Os.
Furthermore, of course, VxFS is prone to defragmentation while UFS is not.
I am trying to understand how the situation changes when logging in enabled.
The docs I have been reading have thus far lead me to understand
(incorrectly?) that ufs logging consolidates metadata updates and writes
them at one go, thus improving it's performance.
But if the above is true, wouldn't the data IO be affected as well?
After all user data is written only after metadata is updated right?
In Sun InfoDoc 74750, it clearly states that "No Performance degradation
should be seen when logging is enabled".
This statement is a little difficult to swallow without understanding
the underlying logging mechanism. Could some guru here elaborate?
Warmest Regards
Steven Sim
Fujitsu Asia Pte. Ltd.
_____________________________________________________
This e-mail is confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.
Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate
to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by it.
_______________________________________________
ufs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
