From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 13 18:10:33 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE9916A41F for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:10:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from brdavis@odin.ac.hmc.edu) Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (Odin.AC.HMC.Edu [134.173.32.75]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0D7D43D45 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:10:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from brdavis@odin.ac.hmc.edu) Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j9DIARGf032515; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:10:27 -0700 Received: (from brdavis@localhost) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0/Submit) id j9DIAQGA032514; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:10:26 -0700 Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:10:26 -0700 From: Brooks Davis To: Max Laier Message-ID: <20051013181026.GB27418@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <434E46C0.7060903@centtech.com> <200510131412.23525.max@love2party.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200510131412.23525.max@love2party.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=8.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on odin.ac.hmc.edu Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Eric Anderson Subject: Re: ufsstat - testers / feedback wanted! X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:10:33 -0000 --IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 02:12:11PM +0200, Max Laier wrote: > On Thursday 13 October 2005 13:36, Eric Anderson wrote: > > I have not done any performance testing yet to see if it impacts > > filesystem performance by any measurable amount, so if someone does do > > this testing before I do, please post your results! >=20 > I don't think you can measure one single interger (or 64bit) increase in = face=20 > of a operation that has to access backing store. Even if there is a=20 > performance hit, you don't have to build your kernel with the option enab= led. The one thing I'd be worried about here is that 64bit updates are expensive on 32bit machines if you want them to be atomic. Relative to backing store they probably still don't matter, but the might be noticable. -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDTqMSXY6L6fI4GtQRAgsnAJ9vPYryM9+nGJya2SLLNLlWLydd0ACgzVYj fn2juLyBAO4e2Slm21hnp+o= =87ky -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX--