From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 30 20:49:03 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27EF816A401 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:49:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from usleepless@gmail.com) Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.204]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FF0143D6B for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:49:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from usleepless@gmail.com) Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id l8so569027nzf for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:49:01 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=EFoCdUU5USoDl1BcL+kl4RFRSURiKM3JKgi7VcGKUVchAhK0JOVcrbL/D8Vq6cHmZdx9BX75Hc6gmS9brKEp6PUlSJRaHUgvWvyelu0O1AZYjpetfxjCkywwA9KxS0q4BjIRRxMJZqD/eY9DwfgjRzwnLMmQz+DgU8oUaH7+zDI= Received: by 10.36.220.43 with SMTP id s43mr162284nzg; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:49:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.154.7 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:49:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:49:01 +0200 From: usleepless@gmail.com To: "Kris Kennaway" In-Reply-To: <20060330202145.GA17856@xor.obsecurity.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <442B2FC6.9040001@123.com.sv> <20060330011834.GA84658@xor.obsecurity.org> <442BF0BB.8010504@123.com.sv> <20060330202145.GA17856@xor.obsecurity.org> Cc: Miguel , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: terrible performance in 6.1beta4 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:49:03 -0000 Kris, > Yes, this is my impression of the problem too. Any time your process > is waiting on disk I/O it is going to perform terribly (on any OS - > disks are slow), and the way to fix this is to make sure it does as > little I/O as possible (by allowing everything to be cached in RAM). just for my curiosity, do you share my opinion on the fsync issue? regards, usleep