Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:12:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Jaye Mathisen <mrcpu@cdsnet.net> To: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@freefall.freebsd.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, gibbs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: QUEUE_FULL_ENABLE option really work? Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.92.960418151140.314E-100000@schizo.cdsnet.net> In-Reply-To: <199604182055.NAA08285@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hmmm, well, my bonnie numbers didn't change much at all, and i was getting "QUEUE Full" messages on my console, which have disappeared. Now if I can get rid of the FS corruption on my 2940UW, I'll be a happy camper. (From another message). On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > The option is QUEUE_FULL_SUPPORTED and it does what its supposed to. > It increases the number of tags allowed per device to 4 instead of > the default of two. > > >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 > > But your random I/O scores will decrease since the drive will only > have at max two I/Os to sort in order to reduce seeks. If you're > only interested in sequential I/O, you might as well turn off > tagged queueing since for some devices you will get better results. > > -- > Justin T. Gibbs > =========================================== > FreeBSD: Turning PCs into workstations > =========================================== >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.92.960418151140.314E-100000>