From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Feb 19 12:18:54 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from peach.ocn.ne.jp (peach.ocn.ne.jp [210.145.254.87]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7632337BC33 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 12:18:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dcs@newsguy.com) Received: from newsguy.com (dcs@p10-dn01kiryunisiki.gunma.ocn.ne.jp [211.0.245.11]) by peach.ocn.ne.jp (8.9.1a/OCN) with ESMTP id FAA16032; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 05:18:44 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <38AEFA6C.58CE6857@newsguy.com> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 05:17:48 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pt-BR,ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Cc: Brad Knowles , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Initial performance testing w/ postmark & softupdates... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Tom wrote: > > > Softupdates reduces the number of writes needed. It can coalesce writes > > to the same block. > > Async updates are always as fast as softupdates, if not faster. You > should read the softupdates docs. I read the docs and the paper. It has been empirically shown that this is not the case. 'nuff said. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org "If you consider our help impolite, you should see the manager." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message