From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Mar 22 16:34:28 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 500C316A4CE
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:34:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zardoc.esmtp.org (adsl-63-195-85-27.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
	[63.195.85.27])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A8543D2D
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:34:27 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from ca+envelope@esmtp.org)
Received: from zardoc.esmtp.org ([127.0.0.1])
	by zardoc.esmtp.org (sendmail 9.0.0.PreAlpha12) with ESMTP
	id S00000000404775DB01; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:35:57 -0800
Received: (from ca@localhost)i2N0Zun5026306
	for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:35:56 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:35:56 -0800
From: Claus Assmann <freebsd+fs@esmtp.org>
To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20040323003556.GA22741@zardoc.esmtp.org>
References: <20040317060617.GA23526@zardoc.esmtp.org>
	<20040319221643.GA90277@dan.emsphone.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040319221643.GA90277@dan.emsphone.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
Subject: Re: softupdates and two different MTAs
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:34:28 -0000

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!