Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>