Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:24:51 -0700 From: "Kory Hamzeh" <kory@avatar.com> To: "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org> Cc: <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Performance tuning results Message-ID: <003b01c13178$ad44fa60$14ce21c7@avatar.com> In-Reply-To: <15245.63001.898491.751110@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Mike Meyer > > What's interesting is that IDE write caching helped more than the > > softupdates. > > Why is that interesting? Softupdates caches things in the system > memory to try and improve performance in a reliable manner. IDE disk > caching caches things in the disks memory without worrying about > reliability. One would expect the more reliable mechanism to be > slower. Because I assume that the system buffer cache is larger than the drive's buffer cache. > > If you really want the extra speed - and don't care about reliability > - you can mount your file systems async, softupdates off. If soft > udpates are on, the async flag to mount is quietly ignored. That > caches data in the system memory without regard to reliability just > like the IDE disk cache does. > Why is IDE write caching less reliable than softupdates? They both basically do the same thing: delay the write. Kory To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?003b01c13178$ad44fa60$14ce21c7>