From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Nov 17 12:56:13 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3290B16A4CE
	for <freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:56:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D956A43FBD
	for <freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:56:11 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
	by gw.catspoiler.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hAHKtreF088763;
	Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:55:57 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <200311172055.hAHKtreF088763@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:55:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
To: kmarx@vicor.com
In-Reply-To: <3FB911D8.5080300@vicor.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org
cc: mckusick@beastie.mckusick.com
Subject: Re: 4.8 ffs_dirpref problem
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:56:13 -0000

On 17 Nov, Ken Marx wrote:
> 
> Don Lewis wrote:

>> Since I probably won't have time to get anything different tested before
>> the -CURRENT code freeze, do you have any objections if I just MFC the
>> code that I previously committed to -CURRENT?  It certainly seems to
>> perform better than the original code which is still in 4-STABLE.

> Don, any fine points you put on our corse level of testing here
> are fine with us. I belive any of the versions you suggest will
> keep us well out of the crippling behavior that originally brought
> this up.

Ok, I'll do the commit as soon as I can do some testing on my -STABLE
box.

> I was able to run a couple more tests here, and *belive* that the
> fix to the hash table in vfs_bio.c will provide some relief
> for cg block searches when things do fall into the linear search case.

I'll see about cranking out patch to use a Fibonacci hash.  It'll
probably be a little while before I can find sufficient time, though.