Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:53:24 +0100 From: Wilko Bulte <wilko@yedi.iaf.nl> To: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> Cc: wilko@freebsd.org, 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 Message-ID: <20000321195324.D966@yedi.iaf.nl> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10003202353460.8524-100000@beppo.feral.com>; from mjacob@feral.com on Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 11:54:58PM -0800 References: <20000321000435.A8143@yedi.iaf.nl> <Pine.BSF.4.10.10003202353460.8524-100000@beppo.feral.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 11:54:58PM -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote: > > > > 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). OK. 256K might be a bit on the high side. -- Wilko Bulte Arnhem, The Netherlands http://www.tcja.nl The FreeBSD Project: http://www.freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000321195324.D966>