From owner-freebsd-current Mon Mar 20 16:36:52 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mass.cdrom.com (mass.cdrom.com [204.216.28.184]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E16537B9F1; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:35:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.cdrom.com) Received: from mass.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA03987; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:37:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <200003210037.QAA03987@mass.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Alfred Perlstein , Matthew Dillon , current@FreeBSD.ORG, bde@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: I/O clustering, Re: patches for test / review In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:33:13 +0100." <20471.953584393@critter.freebsd.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:37:08 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > I agree that it is obvious for NFS, but I don't see it as being > obvious at all for (modern) disks, so for that case I would like > to see numbers. > > If running without clustering is just as fast for modern disks, > I think the clustering needs rethought. I think it should be pretty obvious, actually. Command overhead is large (and not getting much smaller), and clustering primarily serves to reduce the number of commands and thus the ratio of command time vs. data time. So unless the clustering implementation is extremely poor, it's worthwhile. -- \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message