Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>