From owner-freebsd-current Mon Mar 20 11:22:52 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EBCE37B966 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:22:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost.freebsd.dk [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA20104; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:21:52 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: Matthew Dillon , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: patches for test / review In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:15:45 PST." <20000320111544.A14789@fw.wintelcom.net> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:21:52 +0100 Message-ID: <20102.953580112@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <20000320111544.A14789@fw.wintelcom.net>, Alfred Perlstein writes: >Keeping the currect cluster code is a bad idea, if the drivers were >taught how to traverse the linked list in the buf struct rather >than just notice "a big buffer" we could avoid a lot of page >twiddling and also allow for massive IO clustering ( > 64k ) Before we redesign the clustering, I would like to know if we actually have any recent benchmarks which prove that clustering is overall beneficial ? I would think that track-caches and intelligent drives would gain much if not more of what clustering was designed to do gain. I seem to remember Bruce saying that clustering could even hurt ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message