Tony Galway writes:
> Anton & Roch,
>
> Thank you for helping me understand this. I didn't want
to make too many assumptions that were unfounded and then
incorrectly relay that information back to clients.
>
> So if I might just repeat your statements, so my slow mind is sure it
> understands, and Roch, yes your assumption is correct that I am referencing
> File System Cache, not disk cache.
>
> A. Copy-on-write exists solely to ensure on disk data
integrity, and as Anton pointed out it is completely
different than DirectIO.
I would say 'ensure pool integrity' but you get the idea.
>
> b. ZFS still avail's itself of a file system cache, and
therefore, it is possible that data can be lost if it hasn't
been written to disk and the server fails.
Yep.
>
> c. The write throttling issue is known, and being looked
at - when it is fixed we don't know? I'll add myself to the
notification list as an interested party :)
Yep.
>
> Now to another question related to Anton's post. You mention that directIO
> does not exist in ZFS at this point. Are their plan's to support DirectIO;
> any functionality that will simulate directIO or some other non-caching
> ability suitable for critical systems such as databases if the client still
> wanted to deploy on filesystems.
>
here Anton and I disagree on this. I believe that ZFS
design would not gain much performance from something we'd call
directio. See:
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/zfs_and_directio
-r
>
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
