From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 16 12:49:41 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7647616A424; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 12:49:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk) Received: from mail.links.org (mail.links.org [217.155.92.109]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B77EA43D48; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 12:49:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk) Received: from [193.133.15.219] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.links.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E63A433C1A; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:49:39 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <43524C67.9040503@algroup.co.uk> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:49:43 +0100 From: Ben Laurie User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Watson References: <134970360.20050825104636@adeon.lublin.pl> <20050825092210.25239.qmail@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1476333643.20050825224149@adeon.lublin.pl> <434F7EBA.1090206@algroup.co.uk> <20051014120728.O22507@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20051014120728.O22507@fledge.watson.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.6.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, JG , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_W=F6rner?= Subject: Re: slow tar performance on fbsd5 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 12:49:41 -0000 Robert Watson wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Ben Laurie wrote: > >> JG wrote: >> >>>> Now I say, what about >>>> # cpio -i < mysql-m.tgz >>>> (assuming that mysql-m.tgz is in "tar" format)? >>> >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> idea is good, but the result is the same :/ >> >> >> The filesystem is _much_ slower in 5 than it is in 4. You can >> benchmark it with postmark (in the ports tree) - the difference is huge. > > > If you haven't tried 6.x yet, please do, and see if that improves the > situation. And if you run into problems, please report ASAP so we can > try to get them fixed before we release. :-) Hmmm... all of my 5.x systems are live, so this is a bit risky for me! -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff