From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Feb 11  4:47:29 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from gw.gbch.net (gw.gbch.net [203.24.22.66])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D83BF37B401
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 04:47:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 92239 invoked by uid 1001); 11 Feb 2001 22:47:02 +1000
X-Posted-By: GJB-Post 2.12 07-Feb-2001
X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.1-RELEASE i386
X-URL: http://www.gbch.net/gjb/
X-Image-URL: http://www.gbch.net/gjb/img/gjb-auug048.gif
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 5A91 6942 8CEA 9DAB B95B  C249 1CE1 493B 2B5A CE30
X-PGP-Public-Key: http://www.gbch.net/gjb/gjb-pgpkey.asc
Message-Id: <nospam-3a8689c5d616824@maxim.gbch.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:47:01 +1000
From: Greg Black <gjb@gbch.net>
To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>
Cc: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>,
	freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: soft updates performance 
References: <200102102245.f1AMj1328151@earth.backplane.com> <nospam-3a863fdf721615e@maxim.gbch.net> <20010211010050.I3274@fw.wintelcom.net> 
In-reply-to: <20010211010050.I3274@fw.wintelcom.net> 
	of Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:00:50 PST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

Alfred Perlstein wrote:

> * Greg Black <gjb@gbch.net> [010210 23:33] wrote:
> > Matt Dillon wrote:
> > 
> > >     Unless you are doing a read-only mount, there are still going to be
> > >     cases where having softupdates turned on can be advantageous.  For
> > >     example, installworld will go a lot faster.  I also consider softupdates
> > >     a whole lot safer, even if all you are doing is editing an occassional
> > >     file.
> > 
> > OK, I'm sold on the general idea of using soft updates; but what
> > sort of performance improvements should I expect to see?
> > 
> > I do a kernel compile on a freshly-rebooted box with an without
> > softupdates; without, it took 20m45s and with soft updates it
> > still took 20m10s --- this is less than 3% faster, which is
> > close to statistically insignificant.  Is this expected, or is
> > there some other factor I should look at?
> 
> Does 'mount' actually show softupdates as active?  If not you
> need to run 'tunefs' on the partition to set them active.

Yes, I ran tunefs as per the manual and I checked with mount.


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