Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:57:20 +0300 From: Dan Naumov <dan.naumov@gmail.com> To: =?windows-1252?Q?=8Aimun_Mikecin?= <numisemis@yahoo.com> Cc: "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ufs2 / softupdates / ZFS / disk write cache Message-ID: <cf9b1ee00906211557l72aec9d9rab7561d12cf11b81@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <570433.20373.qm@web37308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <570433.20373.qm@web37308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/6/21 =8Aimun Mikecin <numisemis@yahoo.com> > > 21. lip. 2009., u 13:41, Andrew Snow <andrew@modulus.org> napisao: > > Folks who need to maximize safety and can't afford the performance > > hit of no write cache need to do what they always have had to do in > > the past - buy a controller card with battery-backed cached. > > Or: > B) use SCSI instead of ATA disks > C) use UFS+gjournal instead of UFS+SU > D) use ZFS instead of UFS+SU Actually I think a need a few clarifications regarding ZFS: 1) Does FreeBSD honor the "flush the cache to disk now" commands issued by ZFS to the harrdive only when ZFS is used directly on top of a disk device directly or does this also work when ZFS is used on top of a slice/partition? 2) If we compare ZFS vs UFS+SU while using a regular "lying" SATA disk (wit= h write cache enabled) under heavy IO followed by a power loss. Which one is going to recover better and why? Sincerely, - Dan Naumov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cf9b1ee00906211557l72aec9d9rab7561d12cf11b81>