[Ocfs2-devel] OCFS2 features RFC - separate journal?
Daniel Phillips
phillips at google.com
Mon May 8 13:22:15 CDT 2006
Paul Taysom wrote:
> Network Appliance has been very successful with exactly this
> architecture.
> Paul
Perhaps alternative architectures exist that are just as good, if not
better?
Regards,
Daniel
>>>>Daniel Phillips <phillips at google.com> 05/08/06 11:43 am >>>
>
> Paul Taysom wrote:
>
>>If I was worried about NFS performance, I'd rather use NVRAM as an
>>immediate reply disk drive.
>
>
> What makes you think that that is any faster than just having a fast
> journal on the filesystem? It is certainly messier and adds two more
> data copies. Plus it only helps NFS, what if there are other servers
> on the node? And how do you maintain cache consistency with the data
> written to the NFS reply journal when it has been acknowledged but is
> not actually in the filesystem?
>
> On a snapshot, the NFS reply journal would be one more thing that
> needs to be flushed, this is one more thing needing administration
> attention.
>
> How much latency do you think is saved by a dedicated reply journal vs
> a fast filesystem journal? I doubt it is as much as you suppose, it
> is on the order of microseconds per write and the reply journal will
> eventually have to pay double for that anyway.
>
> Also, somebody has to implement your NFS reply journal, further
> messing
> up knfsd. I am having a hard time seeing what is good about a
> dedicated NFS reply journal.
>
> Regards,
>
> Daniel
>
More information about the Ocfs2-devel
mailing list