Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 15:14:39 -0700 From: Alex Zepeda <jazepeda@pacbell.net> To: "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Article: Network performance by OS Message-ID: <20010616151439.A712@zippy.mybox.zip> In-Reply-To: <200106162031.f5GKVfm16209@saturn.cs.uml.edu>; from acahalan@cs.uml.edu on Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 04:31:41PM -0400 References: <200106162031.f5GKVfm16209@saturn.cs.uml.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 04:31:41PM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > I guess it's fair to shove Linux deep into swap (as pro-FreeBSD > benchmarkers always do), but not fair to make FreeBSD handle a > large directory? Well... no. This test did stress FreeBSD's ability to handle large directories, and that's fine. Especially since they didn't even bother to compare it to ReiserFS, which should be much better. However, they could have / should have leveled the playing field with one very simple tweak: *Mount all filesystems async* The tests merely tested the effect of the disk's ability to handle tagged queuing and the disk's ability to cache stuff. - alex To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010616151439.A712>