From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jul  3 00:43:10 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Received: from localhost.my.domain (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E62516A40F;
	Mon,  3 Jul 2006 00:43:10 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from davidxu@freebsd.org)
From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 08:42:48 +0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2
References: <14a4a8480606261918q39b51f7bkd69958c5a7b05021@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060627033412.GQ10845@wantadilla.lemis.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060627033412.GQ10845@wantadilla.lemis.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200607030842.48837.davidxu@freebsd.org>
Cc: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@freebsd.org>,
	leo huang <leo.huang.list@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is the fsync() fake on FreeBSD6.1?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance/tuning <freebsd-performance.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 00:43:11 -0000

On Tuesday 27 June 2006 11:34, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:

> This is not the case for Linux, where fsync syncs the entire file
> system.  That could explain some of the performance difference, but
> not all of it.  I suppose it's worth noting that, in general, people
> report much better performance with MySQL on Linux than on FreeBSD.
>

I recent have tested SCHED_CORE, the scheduler has same dynamic
priority algorithm as Linux 2.6, it can make 10% performance boost
for super-smack on my dual PIII, I tested it on local host,  but 
its user interaction is quite bad under heavy load,  scheduling
alogrithm makes sense, but 4BSD is still best scheduler for me.

> > I mean than the data is only written to the drives memory and so can
> > be lost if power goes down.
>
> I don't believe that fsync is required to flush the drive buffers.  It
> would be nice to have a function that did, though.
>
> > And how I can confirm this?
>
> Trial and error?
>
> Greg
> --
> See complete headers for address and phone numbers.