Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 00:31:38 -0700 (MST) From: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com> To: Brian Tao <taob@risc.org> Cc: "matthew c. mead" <mmead@goof.com>, isp@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: freebsd as a news server? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970309002758.6158R-100000@alive.znep.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970309021448.22711C-100000@alpha.risc.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
You are probably using 2.2 or -current, right? On a 2.2 system I get
similar results to yours. On 2.1, async mounts only change one bit of
ffs code. In 2.2, they make more things async. I don't think the
difference in real life between 2.1 async and 2.2 async is as big as in a
test like this.
On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, Brian Tao wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Mar 1997, Marc Slemko wrote:
> >
> > #!/usr/bin/perl
> > for ($i = 0; $i < 1000; $i++) {
> > open(F, ">test.$i");
> > close F;
> > }
> > for ($i = 0; $i < 1000; $i++) {
> > unlink("test.$i");
> > }
> >
> > This gives me 36.62 seconds sync and a drive that sounds like it is
> > trying to chew on a pengiun vs. 22.99 async and an almost silent
> > drive.
>
> I was quite sure the difference was much greater, so I tried it on
> my system at home after seeing your numbers:
>
> # mount -u -o async,noatime /
> # cd /tmp ; time touch `jot 1000` ; time rm `jot 1000`
> 0.055u 1.452s 0:01.55 96.7% 17+186k 1+24io 0pf+0w
> 0.062u 0.371s 0:01.10 39.0% 175+244k 0+23io 0pf+0w
> # sync
> # mount -u /
> # time touch `jot 1000` ; time rm `jot 1000`
> 0.062u 1.655s 0:34.51 4.9% 16+183k 0+2023io 0pf+0w
> 0.047u 0.618s 0:30.19 2.1% 178+242k 0+2000io 0pf+0w
>
> 2.65s vs. 64.70s in tcsh, and 1.72s vs. 44.44s using your perl
> example. Why the large discrepancy in async times, I wonder?
> --
> Brian Tao (BT300, taob@risc.org)
> "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"
>
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.970309002758.6158R-100000>