From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Feb 20 08:15:05 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9B041744A9
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:15:05 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from zbeeble@gmail.com)
Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.189])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F45513C461
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:15:05 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from zbeeble@gmail.com)
Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id m19so2682038nfc
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:15:03 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
	b=aHWKRiIrAvikGljTwacwA3jYyf7BGVN5BXkA2EJCHWT4Ldz31x+Pkgbp9y5qIH65OjGK+CTTxuYR18vfg6U3B2Y1iwQrkSlqAvPbQsXe2fQjFM1SxhUwzyLOUMONKsM7MFfSci0wOAxlKknQ58zTAFQx1mvVUL377v1yXubNJo0=
Received: by 10.82.172.15 with SMTP id u15mr12504733bue.1171957620225;
	Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:47:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.82.175.17 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:47:00 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5f67a8c40702192347h7383a238v2ff212b38404eb70@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:47:00 -0500
From: "Zaphod Beeblebrox" <zbeeble@gmail.com>
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <5f67a8c40702192346re1ada13gcfb3d10db6139cde@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20070218002758.GQ859@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
	<5f67a8c40702192346re1ada13gcfb3d10db6139cde@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5
Subject: Fwd: Abyssmal dump cache efficiency
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:15:05 -0000

(oops... didn't group reply)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Zaphod Beeblebrox <zbeeble@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 20, 2007 2:46 AM
Subject: Re: Abyssmal dump cache efficiency
To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au>

On 2/17/07, Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> I've tried modelling a unified cache along the NetBSD line and there
> appears to be a massive improvement in cache performance.  It's unclear
> how much of an improvement this will give in overall performance but
> not physically reading data from disk must be faster than reading it.
>
> I believe it would be worthwhile creating a todo item to investigate
> this more thoroughly.


This squares perfectly with my recent observation that while runing some
combination of "dump | restore" that the dump disks incur 2 to 3 times more
I/O (reading) than the restore disks.  Now... for "performance" I was using
the cache function --- maybe the cache is actually a detriment.