By erickustarz on Nov 21, 2006
People are finding that setting 'zil_disable' seems to increase their performance - especially NFS/ZFS performance. But what does setting 'zil_disable' to 1 really do? It completely disables the ZIL. Ok fine, what does that mean?
Disabling the ZIL causes ZFS to not immediatley write synchronous operations to disk/storage. With the ZIL disabled, the synchronous operations (such as fsync(), O_DSYNC, OP_COMMIT for NFS, etc.) will be written to disk, just at the same guarantees as asynchronous operations. That means you can return success to applications/NFS clients before the data has been commited to stable storage. In the event of a server crash, if the data hasn't been written out to the storage, it is lost forever.
With the ZIL disabled, no ZIL log records are written.
Note: disabling the ZIL does NOT compromise filesystem integrity. Disabling the ZIL does NOT cause corruption in ZFS.
Disabling the ZIL is definitely frowned upon and can cause your applications much confusion. Disabling the ZIL can cause corruption for NFS clients in the case where a reply to the client is done before the server crashes, and the server crashes before the data is commited to stable storage. If you can't live with this, then don't turn off the ZIL.
The 'zil_disable' tuneable will go away once 6280630 zil synchronicity is putback.
Hmm, so all of this sounds shady - so why did we add 'zil_disable' to the code base? Not for people to use, but as an easy way to do performance measurements (to isolate areas outside the ZIL).