Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 23:54:58 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: wilko@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: patches for test / review Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10003202353460.8524-100000@beppo.feral.com> In-Reply-To: <20000321000435.A8143@yedi.iaf.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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. Not necessarily. It depends upon overhead costs per-i/o. With larger I/Os, you do pay in interference costs (you can't transfer data for request N because the 256Kbytes of request M is still in the pipe). 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?Pine.BSF.4.10.10003202353460.8524-100000>