Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 18:32:07 +0200 From: sthaug@nethelp.no To: eivind@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: jkh@zippy.cdrom.com, dscheidt@enteract.com, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: a two-level port system? (fwd) Message-ID: <49496.928341127@verdi.nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:35:28 %2B0200" References: <19990602173528.B70808@bitbox.follo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I still don't see what the fuss is about in any case since soft > > updates would be SLOWER than the async mode I use during installation > > and anyone who's actually bothered to benchmark extraction of files > > with the two systems knows this. Have you ever timed it? If not, why > > not? That seems the minimum amount of work one would be expected to > > put in before arguing passionately on any topic. :-) > > Because benchmarking something that is synchronously creating inodes > all over the disk in a rotating fashion (due to the directory > allocation policy) against something that is running fully async and > with an elevator sort over the full set of transactions should be sort > of useless. It's like doing uphill testing of a fat guy on a bicycle > against a Lamborghini - you "know" the result beforehand. > > If extraction of the ports collection (not files in general, just the > ports collection) is slower using soft updates than using "async" > mode, then it seems some elevator sorting isn't working the way it > should, or we are getting queue stalls due to a limited queue size > somewhere. OK, here's a practical result. PII-350 running 3.2-STABLE, extracting the ports from 3.2-19990526-STABLE.tgz. The disk is a Barracuda 9 LP (ST39173W) on an Adaptec 7890 controller. The file system was newfs'ed (8 kbytes/inode) before each extraction. Softupdates: # time tar xzf /local/ports-3.2-19990526-STABLE.tgz 6.274u 38.703s 11:09.90 6.7% 283+1045k 1100+112517io 0pf+0w Async: # time tar xzf /local/ports-3.2-19990526-STABLE.tgz 6.311u 69.739s 12:06.17 10.4% 283+1027k 1378+118407io 0pf+0w Not a huge difference, but enough to be noticeable. Watching with vmstat while the extraction was running, you could clearly see more disk operations per second for softupdates. As always, YMMV. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49496.928341127>