From owner-freebsd-audit Tue Jan 22 11:54: 8 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-audit@freebsd.org Received: from netau1.alcanet.com.au (ntp.alcanet.com.au [203.62.196.27]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C4FF37B402; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:54:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mfg1.cim.alcatel.com.au (mfg1.cim.alcatel.com.au [139.188.23.1]) by netau1.alcanet.com.au (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA01758; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 06:54:03 +1100 (EDT) Received: from gsmx07.alcatel.com.au by cim.alcatel.com.au (PMDF V5.2-32 #37641) with ESMTP id <01KDEGSMAJ4WVFN3PH@cim.alcatel.com.au>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 06:54:11 +1100 Received: (from jeremyp@localhost) by gsmx07.alcatel.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g0MJs0A16108; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 06:54:00 +1100 Content-return: prohibited Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 06:53:59 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy Subject: Re: systat(1) bugs In-reply-to: <20020121000458.GA95702@StefanEsser.FreeBSD.org>; from se@FreeBSD.org on Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 01:04:58AM +0100 To: Stefan Esser Cc: freebsd-audit@FreeBSD.org Mail-Followup-To: Stefan Esser , freebsd-audit@FreeBSD.org Message-id: <20020123065359.P72285@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i References: <20020121093532.D72285@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> <20020121000458.GA95702@StefanEsser.FreeBSD.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-audit@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 2002-Jan-21 01:04:58 +0100, Stefan Esser wrote: >The namei Dir-cache % display is wrong, since it calculates the >percentage based on the total number of requests, not based on >the number of Name-cache misses. (I.e. with 1000 calls to namei, >950 of them name-cache hits, 30 dir-cache hits, the percentage >will be calculated as 3% (30/1000), while it actually should come >out as 60% (30/(1000-950)) ...) I'm not sure this is as clear-cut. I believe the current behaviour is more correct: To use your numbers, of the 1000 namei() calls, 95% were found in the name-cache and 3% were found in the dir-cache, with the remaining 2% requiring physical reads. This is consistent with my reading on systat(1). I don't see that defining dir-cache as "percent of namei() requests not found in the system wide name translation cache but handled by the per process name translation cache" is an improvement. Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message