From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 25 16:00:28 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC1F616A41F for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:00:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nexus@hoth.amu.edu.pl) Received: from hoth.amu.edu.pl (hoth.amu.edu.pl [150.254.110.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EC3343D45 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:00:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nexus@hoth.amu.edu.pl) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hoth.amu.edu.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15FF710E483; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:00:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hoth.amu.edu.pl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hoth.amu.edu.pl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 34295-03-40; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:00:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from aristo.net (hoth.amu.edu.pl [150.254.110.14]) by hoth.amu.edu.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D6E10E489; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:00:22 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:00:21 +0200 From: Bohdan Horst To: Mark Kirkwood Message-ID: <20050725160021.GB613@aristo> References: <1dbad31505072105401c06bee6@mail.gmail.com> <42E099A0.3080101@paradise.net.nz> <3aaaa3a050724144831d5cff0@mail.gmail.com> <42E4BBCD.3060406@paradise.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42E4BBCD.3060406@paradise.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at hoth.amu.edu.pl Cc: Chris , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD IO Performance (was Re: Quality of FreeBSD) X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:00:29 -0000 On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 10:15:41PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > Hmm - looks like I missed that thread, never mind - repeatability of > findings is sound scientific principle :-) > > With respect to changing the default for vfs.read_max - makes sense to > me, but it would be interesting to know if anyone has a system that > performs *worse* with it set to 16. > > regards > > Mark > > Chris wrote: > >Its been mentioned before and most experience the same as you by > >setting it to 16 a dramatic improvement in the sequential read, I > >currently run all my 5.x servers like this with no issues as a result. > > I am curious if the default will ever be changed. on my notebook: IBM TP 600x 5.4-RELEASE-p4 ad0: 38154MB [77520/16/63] at ata0-master UDMA33 APM enable (but same effect with disable APM) AAC unfortunatelly not supported :( anything above vfs.read_max=1 produce very annoying little sound (i can hear disk heads) when playing movies.. my 2 cents -- Bohdan 'Nexus' Horst