From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 17 02:51:02 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 758) id 0059F16A4CF; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 02:51:01 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 02:51:01 +0000 From: Kris Kennaway To: Emanuel Strobl Message-ID: <20050317025101.GO91771@hub.freebsd.org> References: <87is46kzk1.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> <200503170222.07169@harrymail> <20050316202334.W20708@mail.chesapeake.net> <200503170303.12403@harrymail> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200503170303.12403@harrymail> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: Denis Shaposhnikov cc: Mathieu Arnold cc: Peter Edwards cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Sergey Matveychuk cc: Jeff Roberson Subject: Re: md (file backed) performance [Was: Re: unionfs 5.4] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 02:51:02 -0000 On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 03:03:05AM +0100, Emanuel Strobl wrote: > > I can't MFC this for 5.4, it requires too much of the new vfs architecture > > to properly function. I'll mail re@ to see what their opinion is for 5.5. > > Oic. I haven't tracked -current since christmas so I'd like to ask if you know > anything new about file backed md performance. > I wanted to use that for jail systems but performance was really bad. > Does your great work also improve md behaviour? A few months ago alc made some commits which improved md performance significantly. Kris -- In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe