From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Mar 8 23:20:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA04068 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 23:20:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from alpha.risc.org (taob@trt-on8-10.netcom.ca [207.181.82.202]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA04045; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 23:20:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (taob@localhost) by alpha.risc.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id CAA23119; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 02:20:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 02:20:26 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Tao Reply-To: Brian Tao To: Marc Slemko cc: "matthew c. mead" , isp@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: freebsd as a news server? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 8 Mar 1997, Marc Slemko wrote: > > #!/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. I was quite sure the difference was much greater, so I tried it on my system at home after seeing your numbers: # mount -u -o async,noatime / # cd /tmp ; time touch `jot 1000` ; time rm `jot 1000` 0.055u 1.452s 0:01.55 96.7% 17+186k 1+24io 0pf+0w 0.062u 0.371s 0:01.10 39.0% 175+244k 0+23io 0pf+0w # sync # mount -u / # time touch `jot 1000` ; time rm `jot 1000` 0.062u 1.655s 0:34.51 4.9% 16+183k 0+2023io 0pf+0w 0.047u 0.618s 0:30.19 2.1% 178+242k 0+2000io 0pf+0w 2.65s vs. 64.70s in tcsh, and 1.72s vs. 44.44s using your perl example. Why the large discrepancy in async times, I wonder? -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob@risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"