Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:35:56 -0800 From: Claus Assmann <freebsd+fs@esmtp.org> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: softupdates and two different MTAs Message-ID: <20040323003556.GA22741@zardoc.esmtp.org> In-Reply-To: <20040319221643.GA90277@dan.emsphone.com> References: <20040317060617.GA23526@zardoc.esmtp.org> <20040319221643.GA90277@dan.emsphone.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004, Dan Nelson wrote: > In the last episode (Mar 16), Claus Assmann said: > > | program | FS | writes | reads | > > |---------------+------------------+---------+-------| > > | sm8.12.11 | UFS, softupdates | 236 | 0 | > > | sm9.0.0.12 | UFS, softupdates | 3500 | 4 | > So something is either not fsyncing, or there is clustering going on > behind the scenes. The sm8 softupdates count is disturbingly low, even > assuming good clustering. You are right, it is too low. After following your advice about adding the disk I/O stats to sendmail 8 itself, I finally found that the cf file had SuperSafe=m, which causes it to not issue most of the fsync(2) calls. With SuperSafe=true sm8 uses about twice as many disk writes as sm9 and hence the latter is about two times faster than the former. Thanks for your reply!home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040323003556.GA22741>