Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 07:42:54 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Kirill Ponomarew <krion@voodoo.oberon.net> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 6 is coming too fast Message-ID: <426CF3DE.4000409@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20050425062106.GB91852@voodoo.oberon.net> References: <20050424175543.71041.qmail@web51805.mail.yahoo.com> <20050424151517.O68772@lexi.siliconlandmark.com> <3822.216.177.243.38.1114385370.localmail@webmail.dnswatch.com> <20050425000459.GA28667@xor.obsecurity.org> <6.2.1.2.0.20050424204611.072105a0@64.7.153.2> <20050425010242.GA44110@xor.obsecurity.org> <6.2.1.2.0.20050424210422.03d22990@64.7.153.2> <20050425014453.GA59981@xor.obsecurity.org> <426C6B1D.3040704@elischer.org> <20050425061459.GA33247@xor.obsecurity.org> <20050425062106.GB91852@voodoo.oberon.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kirill Ponomarew wrote: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 11:14:59PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >>>>Measuring disk device performance (i.e. running a benchmark against >>>>the bare device) and filesystem performance (writing to a filesystem >>>>on the device) are very different things. >>> >>>I wish people would stop trying to deny that we have serious work in front >>>of us to get the VFS and disk IO figures back to where they were before. >>> >>>there ARE slowdowns and I have seen it both with tests on teh basic >>>hardware and throug the filesystems. I don't know why this surproses >>>people because we have still a lot of work to do in teh interrupt latency >>>field for example, and I doubt that even PHK would say that there is no >>>work left to do in geom. >>>Where we are now is closing in on "feature complete". Now we need to >>>profile and optimise. >> >>OK, but note that I didn't deny anything, I only questioned whether >>the OP was observing a real problem (he didn't mention disk I/O, or in >>fact any specific claim) or whether it was a coloured perception based >>on the (incorrect) assumption that gcc compilation speed was measuring >>a performance loss in FreeBSD. > > > According to gcc-4.0 release notes, compilation speed for C++ was > dramatically increased, up to 25% IIRC. I think 4.0 is good > candidate for merging into HEAD. > > -Kirill Is this work that you plan on doing for us? What about the deprecated language constructs in 4.0? What about the lack of exposure that it's had outside of the FSF and Apple development circles? Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?426CF3DE.4000409>