Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 06:53:59 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> To: Stefan Esser <se@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-audit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: systat(1) bugs Message-ID: <20020123065359.P72285@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20020121000458.GA95702@StefanEsser.FreeBSD.org>; from se@FreeBSD.org on Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 01:04:58AM %2B0100 References: <20020121093532.D72285@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> <20020121000458.GA95702@StefanEsser.FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2002-Jan-21 01:04:58 +0100, Stefan Esser <se@FreeBSD.org> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020123065359.P72285>