From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Apr 18 9:45: 4 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from spinner.netplex.com.au (spinner.netplex.com.au [202.12.86.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8E78152F7 for ; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 09:44:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) Received: from netplex.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spinner.netplex.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DC7C1F2A; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 00:42:30 +0800 (WST) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: "John S. Dyson" Cc: dillon@apollo.backplane.com (Matthew Dillon), dyson@iquest.net, dg@root.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Directories not VMIO cached at all! In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 18 Apr 1999 09:52:21 EST." <199904181452.JAA18474@dyson.iquest.net> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 00:42:30 +0800 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <19990418164232.4DC7C1F2A@spinner.netplex.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "John S. Dyson" wrote: > > :You are right about VDIR's not being B_VMIO. That was a decision made ear ly > > :on when the vfs_bio code was not trustworthy :-). It is okay, and advanta geous > > :to cache VDIR's with merged cache. [..] > The only advantage of getting rid of B_MALLOC would be to totally relax > the amount of memory used for caching directories. The disadvantage > is the potentially gross amount of internal fragmentation of memory. > > Perhaps before getting rid of B_MALLOC, take a look at the standard > mix of directory sizes (don't just look at news servers.) If there is an > extreme bias towards 512 or 2048, then you might consider keeping B_MALLOC. Would small block devices/filesystems likely be affected? (ie: msdos, ext2fs etc) Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message