From owner-freebsd-scsi Thu May 21 02:34:35 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA05581 for freebsd-scsi-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 02:34:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from keg.cs.vu.nl (root@keg.cs.vu.nl [130.37.24.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA05574 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 02:34:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gkoller@cs.vu.nl) Received: from localhost by keg.cs.vu.nl with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #48) id m0ycRk3-0007BxC; Thu, 21 May 98 11:34 +0200 Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 11:34:26 +0200 (MET DST) From: Guido Kollerie To: freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: CAM performance on -stable Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org To get an indication of the perfomance of CAM I have performed three make -j4 buildworld's. Once with the non-CAM kernel and twice with the CAM kernel. /usr was mounted async,noatime and I used -O -pipe -DCAM_OLD_TIMEOUT for CFLAGS, NOPROFILE was true To my surprise all the three buildworld times were nearly identical (3hr 9min +/- 1min). I had expected the CAM kernel to perform much better as it allows my BT-958 to use Command Tagged Queueing were as the non-CAM kernel did not. Has anyone else found similar results on a -stable system? -- Guido Kollerie To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message