?? Tim wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Mattias Pantzare <pantz...@gmail.com > <mailto:pantz...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 20:03, Tim <t...@tcsac.net > <mailto:t...@tcsac.net>> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Brian Wilson > <bfwil...@doit.wisc.edu <mailto:bfwil...@doit.wisc.edu>> > > wrote: > >> > >> Does creating ZFS pools on multiple partitions on the same > physical drive > >> still run into the performance and other issues that putting > pools in slices > >> does? > > > > > > Is zfs going to own the whole drive or not? The *issue* is that > zfs will > > not use the drive cache if it doesn't own the whole disk since it > won't know > > whether or not it should be flushing cache at any given point in > time. > > ZFS will always flush the disk cache at appropriate times. If ZFS > thinks that is alone it will turn the write cache on the disk on. > > > I'm not sure if you're trying to argue or agree. If you're trying to > argue, you're going to have to do a better job than "zfs will always > flush disk cache at appropriate times", because that's outright false in > the case where zfs doesn't own the entire disk. That flush may very > well produce an outcome zfs could never pre-determine.
Would you care to explain this logic? Are you saying that if ZFS sends a cache flush command to a disk that it will "produce an outcome ZFS could never pre-determime?" Or am I just misinterpreting? -- richard _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
