Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:50:29 +0200 From: Claus Guttesen <kometen@gmail.com> To: Freddie Cash <fjwcash@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: zfs, nfs and zil Message-ID: <BANLkTimB-LAnDvAt0Xk6ZvE=96NU=f5Hsw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimOjxS12fgWnp2QHaJsb5ixKdFXtfvM2i0JdLH6@mail.gmail.com> References: <BANLkTinZvLDkmUNHmDGQpQFRr31s=hyHuQ@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimOjxS12fgWnp2QHaJsb5ixKdFXtfvM2i0JdLH6@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> If your disk controller has a lot of cache on it, and a battery > backup, then enabling the write cache and disabling the ZIL can be > faster, without sacrifising consistency (the write cache on the > controller acts like a ZIL). =A0There's several threads on the > zfs-discuss mailing list where this is discussed. It's an areca sata-controller with 512 MB battery backed cache. > However, the better solution, and the one most recommended for those > using NFS with ZFS, is to install a small, write-optimised, SLC-based > SSD to the system as a separate log (SLOG/ZIL) device. > > NFS is a very sync-heavy protocol, and having a super-fast ZIL sitting > on a separate SSD will greatly improve things. Thank you. I'll get a ssd-drive (also suggested by Alexander). --=20 regards Claus When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest winner. Shakespeare twitter.com/kometen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BANLkTimB-LAnDvAt0Xk6ZvE=96NU=f5Hsw>