From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Jun 2 8:35:35 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 679DD152BE; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 08:35:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA02858; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:35:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id RAA70991; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:35:28 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:35:28 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund To: Jordan Hubbard Cc: David Scheidt , freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: a two-level port system? (fwd) Message-ID: <19990602173528.B70808@bitbox.follo.net> References: <19990601074227.B58405@bitbox.follo.net> <9736.928333843@peewee> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: <9736.928333843@peewee>; from Jordan Hubbard on Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 07:30:43AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 07:30:43AM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote: > I still don't see what the fuss is about in any case since soft > updates would be SLOWER than the async mode I use during installation > and anyone who's actually bothered to benchmark extraction of files > with the two systems knows this. Have you ever timed it? If not, why > not? That seems the minimum amount of work one would be expected to > put in before arguing passionately on any topic. :-) Because benchmarking something that is synchronously creating inodes all over the disk in a rotating fashion (due to the directory allocation policy) against something that is running fully async and with an elevator sort over the full set of transactions should be sort of useless. It's like doing uphill testing of a fat guy on a bicycle against a Lamborghini - you "know" the result beforehand. If extraction of the ports collection (not files in general, just the ports collection) is slower using soft updates than using "async" mode, then it seems some elevator sorting isn't working the way it should, or we are getting queue stalls due to a limited queue size somewhere. Unfortunately I can't dedicate time right now to investigate it; there are a number of other things I need to get out of my FreeBSD backlog first. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message