From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Oct 7 10:30:12 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C064814FC4 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 10:30:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id KAA95735; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 10:29:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 10:29:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199910071729.KAA95735@apollo.backplane.com> To: Andrzej Bialecki Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Non-standard FFS parameters References: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG : :Running bonnie on the filesystem with these parameters results in :unkillable process sitting in getblk (it's the first phase of bonnie test :when they use putc() to create the file). It just sits there and doesn't :consume CPU. The OS is 3.3-R. : :Andrzej Bialecki Hmmm. It's quite possible, 3.x's getnewbuf() code is pretty nasty. I have a solution under test for 4.x (current). There simply may not be anything that can be done for 3.x short of porting current's getnewbuf() code over, and doing so has been deemed too risky by DG due to all the collateral porting that would also have to be done. I agree with that assessment, plus it's a huge amount of work that I don't have time to do at this late date. Try using a smaller block size, like 16K. If that doesn't work then just stick with 8K I guess. The kernel's clustering code should still make it reasonably efficient. -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message