Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:32:31 +0200 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: numbers don't lie ... Message-ID: <86hcywrxkg.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20060920123940.W63482@woozle.rinet.ru> (Dmitry Morozovsky's message of "Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:45:37 %2B0400 (MSD)") References: <200609141232.k8ECWTXj045191@lurza.secnetix.de> <20060919160511.T33371@woozle.rinet.ru> <20060919173421.GA45928@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060920123940.W63482@woozle.rinet.ru>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> writes: > Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> wrote: > > Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> writes: > > > My experiments show that if you have enough memory to host radmdrive for > > > /usr/src you'd better leave it for caching - there were no statistically > > > meaningful performance difference, at least on machines with 1G+ RAM. > > Really? My measurements show the opposite (on a system with 16GB of > > RAM). > My last test on amd64/dualcore with 4G of RAM and -j4 shows > (buildworld+buildkernel): > > ==> /tmp/buildlog <== > 1996.45 real 3032.94 user 624.83 sys > Script done on Tue Sep 19 14:44:54 2006 > > ==> /tmp/buildlog.md <== > 1957.45 real 3033.93 user 585.78 sys > Script done on Tue Sep 19 15:20:42 2006 > > Second one was with 512M/4k/512 swap-backed md, the former with /usr/src on the > gmirror'ed pair of SATAs. Seems to me that your own numbers contradict you. You saved about 40 seconds (2%) by keeping /usr/src in a ram disk. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@des.nohelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86hcywrxkg.fsf>