Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:56:17 +0700 From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@www.svzserv.kemerovo.su> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Abyssmal dump cache efficiency Message-ID: <20070223035617.GA18955@svzserv.kemerovo.su> In-Reply-To: <5f67a8c40702220937h21dc6963r77637ba369549e25@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070220182113.GC853@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <200702211113.l1LBDbQn006859@lurza.secnetix.de> <5f67a8c40702220937h21dc6963r77637ba369549e25@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:37:00PM -0500, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: > >Peter Jeremy wrote: > >> I've found that you do get a worthwhile improvement in dump|restore > >> performance by introducing a large (10's of MB) fifo between them. > >> This helps reduce synchronisation between dump and restore (so that > >> dump can continue to read whilst restore is busy writing a batch of > >> small files and vice versa). There's a suitable port but I can't > >> recall the name because I wrote my own. > > > >There are several. The most popular ones are probably > >misc/team and misc/buffer. > > I can certainly vouch for that , too. I generally use "team 1m 32" (total > of 32meg of buffer). Team seems to not want to buffer more than 1m per > process and I think 32 is the max # of processes. Someone, please take a look at trivial patch for team's buffer size here: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/106806 The maintainer timeout for the PR has occured long time ago. Eugene Grosbein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070223035617.GA18955>