From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu May  1 13:47:16 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A56E37B404
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Thu,  1 May 2003 13:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gatekeeper.oremut01.us.wh.verio.net
	(gatekeeper.oremut01.us.wh.verio.net [198.65.168.16])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D443B43F85
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Thu,  1 May 2003 13:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from fclift@verio.net)
Received: from mx.dmz.orem.verio.net (mx.dmz.orem.verio.net [10.1.1.10])
	A09523BF3B5	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Thu,  1 May 2003 14:47:15 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from vespa.dmz.orem.verio.net (vespa.dmz.orem.verio.net [10.1.1.59])
	by mx.dmz.orem.verio.net (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h41KlCZ18410;
	Thu, 1 May 2003 14:47:13 -0600 (MDT)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 14:52:14 -0600 (MDT)
From: Fred Clift <fclift@verio.net>
X-X-Sender: <fred@vespa.dmz.orem.verio.net>
To: Heiko Schaefer <hschaefer@fto.de>
In-Reply-To: <20030429171204.W20908@daneel.foundation.hs>
Message-ID: <20030501143456.T43897-100000@vespa.dmz.orem.verio.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: gbde data corruption? 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 20:47:16 -0000

On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Heiko Schaefer wrote:

> hm... cpu seems to be not the limiting factor at all - that machine has an
> athlon 1800+ and is idle >>50% most of the time. without understanding the
> technical details, it seems to me that working on bigger chunks of the
> disc at a time would result in much more throughput.

So how are you measuring cpu?  I seem to remember that system load average
and stats as reported by top dont include a good chunck of code executed
by the kernel - some does and some doesn't.

So, depending on how GBDE is implemented, it might be that your 'no load
average' observations are based on inaccurate data...

This could be kind of tested by checking disk throughput while running
some cpu-intensive programs and comparing it to the idle case...  Just a
thought.

Fred

--
Fred Clift - fclift@verio.net -- Remember: If brute
force doesn't work, you're just not using enough.