Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 15:58:42 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> To: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fixing Union_mounts Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.93.960711154052.10524B-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <199607110337.WAA07219@dyson.iquest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks, I guess it's bad timing with all the release work happening now. On Wed, 10 Jul 1996, John S. Dyson wrote: > I hope to look at this thread this weekend. I know that we need to get > off our duffs starting to make progress on the FS front. My FreeBSD time > is right now tied up on making the swapon/swapoff stuff real. > > There is action about to happen on the Jeffery Hsu Lite-2 stuff, and > I heard that Kirk's ordered-delay writes project might be starting. This Yes, the Lite2 stuff is needed to proceed further. Regarding Delayed-Ordered Writes. Here's an excerpt from Terry's Usenet posting on the UnixWare group: >Contrast this with the UnixWare 2.x UFS, which uses Delayed >Ordered Writes. These require significant changes to each >FS's structure to implement, and do not scale reeentrancy >per vnode across multiple processors for a particular vnode >buffer. They are about 35% slower than soft updates under >loading, and tend to have bad cache effects. I agree that things should probably slow down, but to sit down and do more *designing*. DOW is an performance optimization, and before doing that I think we should take a harder look at the framework that serves as the foundation for all further work. I'd hate to see the same mistakes done in SVR/4MP go into 4.4BSD. Identifying these mistakes might be hard, but I think we should try. -mike hancock
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SV4.3.93.960711154052.10524B-100000>