From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Apr 18 13:31:03 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA05597
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 13:31:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (rah.star-gate.com [204.188.121.18])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA05574
          Thu, 18 Apr 1996 13:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (localhost.star-gate.com [127.0.0.1]) by rah.star-gate.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA03589; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 13:29:38 -0700
Message-Id: <199604182029.NAA03589@rah.star-gate.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.5 12/11/95
To: Jaye Mathisen <mrcpu@cdsnet.net>
cc: hackers@freebsd.org, gibbs@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: QUEUE_FULL_ENABLE option really work? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 18 Apr 1996 13:01:06 PDT."
             <Pine.NEB.3.92.960418125843.19574E-100000@schizo.cdsnet.net> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 13:29:37 -0700
From: "Amancio Hasty Jr." <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

What is this QUEUE_FULL_ENABLE option?

	Tnks,
	Amancio

>>> Jaye Mathisen said:
 > 
 > 
 > I just turned it off on a box with a 2940, and across the board I'm
 > picking up 700-800k/s improvements:
 > 
 > old:
 > 
 > IOZONE performance measurements:
 >         1168024 bytes/second for writing the file
 >         4445767 bytes/second for reading the file
 > 
 > 
 > new:
 > 
 > IOZONE performance measurements:
 >         1790285 bytes/second for writing the file
 >         5332448 bytes/second for reading the file
 > 
 > 
 >