From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Mar 20 23:55: 2 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from feral.com (feral.com [192.67.166.1])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 990DA37BBC3; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 23:54:58 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from mjacob@feral.com)
Received: from beppo.feral.com (beppo [192.67.166.79])
	by feral.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA00369;
	Mon, 20 Mar 2000 23:54:58 -0800
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 23:54:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com>
Reply-To: 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
In-Reply-To: <20000321000435.A8143@yedi.iaf.nl>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10003202353460.8524-100000@beppo.feral.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> 
> 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