Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:40:40 +0300 From: Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg> To: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@futuresouth.com> Cc: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: vm balance Message-ID: <20010414174040.C481@ringworld.oblivion.bg> In-Reply-To: <20010414093426.B4438@futuresouth.com>; from fullermd@futuresouth.com on Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 09:34:26AM -0500 References: <59487.987108936@critter> <200104122124.f3CLOaq25845@earth.backplane.com> <20010414093426.B4438@futuresouth.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 09:34:26AM -0500, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 02:24:36PM -0700, a little birdie told me > that Matt Dillon remarked > > > > Without vmiodirenable turned on, any directory exceeding > > vfs.maxmallocbufspace becomes extremely expensive to work with > > O(N * diskIO). With vmiodirenable turned on huge directories > > are O(N), but have a better chance of being in the VM page cache > > so cost proportionally less even though they don't do any > > better on a relative scale. > > Speaking of vmiodirenable, what are the issues with it that it's not > enabled by default? ISTR that it's been in a while, and most people > pointed at it have reported success with it, and it seems to have solved > problems here and there for a number of people. What's keeping it from > the general case? Attached is a message from Matt Dillon from an earlier -hackers discussion. G'luck, Peter -- The rest of this sentence is written in Thailand, on
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010414174040.C481>