Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 23:39:06 -0700 (MST) From: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com> To: "matthew c. mead" <mmead@goof.com> Cc: isp@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: freebsd as a news server? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970308232002.6158Q-100000@alive.znep.com> In-Reply-To: <199703090616.BAA12521@goof.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, matthew c. mead wrote:
> Hmm. The above seems to suggest that the practice of
> mounting async when doing a make work wouldn't help, but I recall
> it making a pretty measurable difference. What I meant in the
In a make world there are a lot more files being updated (eg. when it
cleans the object tree) than in a kernel make.
> question I asked was, considering that I'm running 2.1.6,
> mounting async probably doesn't make any difference. Is that the
> case? Or am I just not testing things that would make any
> difference? Thanks for the reply!
As I said, making a kernel will not show any big difference; try creating
and removing a large number of files.
say something like:
#!/usr/bin/perl
for ($i = 0; $i < 1000; $i++) {
open(F, ">test.$i");
close F;
}
for ($i = 0; $i < 1000; $i++) {
unlink("test.$i");
}
This gives me 36.62 seconds sync and a drive that sounds like it
is trying to chew on a pengiun vs. 22.99 async and an almost silent
drive.
There would be a bigger difference if:
- there were other processes competing for the disk; the extra
seeks that being mounted sync generates would hurt a lot more.
- the filesystem wasn't as clean; this was done an an empty,
unused filesystem.
As I posted earlier, the feature is there in 2.1.6. It affects
more things in 2.2 but still has a big impact in 2.1 (I did the
above test on a 2.1-stable box) for the right things. News is one
of those things.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.970308232002.6158Q-100000>