Peter Schuller wrote:
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
So just to confirm; disabling the zil *ONLY* breaks the semantics of fsync()
and synchronous writes from the application perspective; it will do *NOTHING*
to lessen the correctness guarantee of ZFS itself, including in the case of a
power outtage?
See this blog that Roch pointed to:
http://blogs.sun.com/erickustarz/entry/zil_disable
See the sentence:
"Note: disabling the ZIL does NOT compromise filesystem integrity.
Disabling the ZIL does NOT cause corruption in ZFS."
This makes it more reasonable to actually disable the zil. But still,
personally I would like to be able to tell the NFS server to simply not be
standards compliant, so that I can keep the correct semantics on the lower
layer (ZFS), and disable the behavior at the level where I actually want it
disabled (the NFS server).
This discussion belongs on the nfs-discuss alias.
eric
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
