Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:19:50 -0800 From: Darrell Anderson <darrell@google.com> To: current@freebsd.org Cc: Chris BeHanna <chris@pennasoft.com> Subject: Re: 5-STABLE Roadmap Message-ID: <3E4D7996.8010303@google.com> In-Reply-To: <15948.63271.427854.685742@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> References: <200302140036.h1E0aK3q071051@freefall.freebsd.org> <a05200f0dba72122437d7@[10.0.1.2]> <25c301c2d3e1$8f2e3e30$52557f42@errno.com> <200302140028.21669.chris@pennasoft.com> <15948.63271.427854.685742@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hey Drew, thanks for the heads up. I'd be happy to see Fstress included with FreeBSD! Regarding SPECsfs, Fstress has a mode that emulates it exactly. A number of major storage companies have adopted it as an easier way to tune their systems before running the actual SPECsfs release numbers. (: -Darrell Andrew Gallatin wrote: > Chris BeHanna writes: > > > > At 4:36 PM -0800 2003/02/13, Scott Long wrote: > > > > > - Fstress - http://www.cs.duke.edu/ari/fstress > > > > SpecFS (NFS ops/sec benchmark) > > > > Have you ever actually used SPECsfs97? In addition to being > encumbered, SPECsfs97 is pain to keep running (dies at the drop of a > hat), and a nightmare to setup. > > Fstress was designed as an easy-to-use, more generic replacement for > things like SPECsfs97. Fstress development was motivated by one of > our best former grad students attempting to use SPECsfs97 to benchmark > the FS he did his thesis work on. Rather than wasting his time fixing > SPECsfs97, he wrote his own from the ground up and got a paper out of > it... > > > Drew 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?3E4D7996.8010303>