Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 11:57:52 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Chris <racerx@makeworld.com> Cc: scottl@freebsd.org, FreeBSD - Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: 6.0R todo list - hash sizes Message-ID: <20051001155752.GD64006@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <433EB047.4070809@makeworld.com> References: <20051001085358.GA62022@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <20051001154628.GA64006@xor.obsecurity.org> <433EB047.4070809@makeworld.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 10:50:31AM -0500, Chris wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 10:53:58AM +0200, Divacky Roman wrote: > > > >>Hi, > >> > >>scottl@ removed: > >> <td>Nullfs (and perhaps other filesystems) use an absurdly small > >> hash size that causes significant performance penalties.</td> > >> > >>this item from 6.0R todo list. How was this solved? I didnt see any commits > >>to enlarge the hash values. Its still the same... why it was removed then? > > > > > > It was an incorrect suggestion on my part - it turns out this was not > > the cause of the performance penalties, and Jeff fixed them long ago. > > > > Kris > > > > Somewhat off topic - what's the status of 6.0? The info on > http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.0R/schedule.html > Has not been updated in some time and we're still on Beta5 The status is that we're still on beta5, and the bugs listed in the todo list need to be fixed. Kris [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDPrH/Wry0BWjoQKURAu2sAJ9NltS4hncvQbTnno9A6TvYRvXYcgCfdrka 0xrNqcx0IwmCxz3nho7o8ro= =sutM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051001155752.GD64006>