Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:04:37 +0100 From: Wilko Bulte <wilko@yedi.iaf.nl> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: patches for test / review Message-ID: <20000321000435.A8143@yedi.iaf.nl> In-Reply-To: <20102.953580112@critter.freebsd.dk>; from phk@critter.freebsd.dk on Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 08:21:52PM %2B0100 References: <20000320111544.A14789@fw.wintelcom.net> <20102.953580112@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 08:21:52PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20000320111544.A14789@fw.wintelcom.net>, Alfred Perlstein writes: > > >Keeping the currect cluster code is a bad idea, if the drivers were > >taught how to traverse the linked list in the buf struct rather > >than just notice "a big buffer" we could avoid a lot of page > >twiddling and also allow for massive IO clustering ( > 64k ) > > Before we redesign the clustering, I would like to know if we > actually have any recent benchmarks which prove that clustering > is overall beneficial ? > > I would think that track-caches and intelligent drives would gain > much if not more of what clustering was designed to do gain. Hm. But I'd think that even with modern drives a smaller number of bigger I/Os is preferable over lots of very small I/Os. Or have I missed the point? -- Wilko Bulte Arnhem, The Netherlands http://www.tcja.nl The FreeBSD Project: http://www.freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000321000435.A8143>