Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:46:21 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, FreeBSD current users <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: something funny with soft updates? Message-ID: <3D1CBD0D.C8A45916@mindspring.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0206280218440.72967-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <200206281828.g5SIS6xI006284@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Dillon wrote: > :there may not be anything wrong but I expected more improvement. > :I remember that when I first committed softupdates it made a noticable > :difference.... > > Julian, please note that a buildworld does *NOT* seriously exercise > the filesystem. I/O ops are mostly reads. The only area where > softupdates might have a major effect would be the rm -rf of the > object tree at the beginning. I still want to know why his KSE numbers were better than the non-KSE numbers when KSE was not using soft updates, and they are the same, now that he *is* using soft updates. In general, there is (was?) a positive difference in buildworld times when using soft updates, and Julian seems to have now demonstrated that this is no longer the case. It would be interesting to find out what broke and who broke it, which is what I think he's asking, and recover the speedup, and find out if it's all in the object tree delete, or not (I think that Julian starts without an object tree for this masurement, right?). Maybe the difference in speed is related to the UFS2 commit? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D1CBD0D.C8A45916>