From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Feb 12 16:31:28 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (winston.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.27.229])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00A8837B491
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:31:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by winston.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.2/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1D0V6H79804;
	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:31:06 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com)
To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>
Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, Danny Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il>,
	Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: soft updates performance 
In-Reply-To: Message from Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> 
   of "13 Feb 2001 01:25:41 +0100." <xzpy9vbo2d6.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> 
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:31:06 -0800
Message-ID: <79800.982024266@winston.osd.bsdi.com>
From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com> writes:
> >             [...]  That implies to me, at least, that after a certain
> > point the CPU is going to be the bottleneck.
> 
> More likely RAM bandwidth. Those 133 Mhz FSBs ought to help, though.

If RAM bandwidth was the bottleneck here then putting /usr/src and
/usr/obj into an MFS would have represented a pessimization over
simply leaving that on disk.  I would have thought that would be
obvious. :)

- Jordan


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message