From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Nov 30 14:55:11 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C04D01065670
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:55:11 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from freebsd-stable@m.gmane.org)
Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7832F8FC1C
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:55:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1NF7ed-0002zq-RV
	for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:55:07 +0100
Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:55:07 +0100
Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:55:07 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:46:46 +0100
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <hf0lsf$5mk$2@ger.gmane.org>
References: <4B13869D.1080907@zedat.fu-berlin.de>	<0D3A9408-84A8-4C74-A318-F580B41FC1A6@exscape.org>	<hf0h0p$lm4$1@ger.gmane.org>	<20091130084704.2893cc85.wmoran@potentialtech.com>
	<19219.55350.599595.807654@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090928)
In-Reply-To: <19219.55350.599595.807654@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
Sender: news <news@ger.gmane.org>
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Phoronix Benchmarks: Waht's wrong with FreeBSD 8.0?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:55:11 -0000

Robert Huff wrote:
> Bill Moran writes:
> 
>>  It's common knowledge that the default value for vfs.read_max is
>>  non- optimal for most hardware and that significant performance
>>  improvements can be made in most cases by raising it.
> 
> 	Documentation/discussion where?

There is no documentation except for the sysctl documentation itself: 
"vfs.read_max: Cluster read-ahead max block count" but it depends on the 
load - it helps sequential reads, will probably do nothing for other 
kinds of loads. It is also UFS-only.