Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:17:56 -0500
From:      "Rick C. Petty" <rick-freebsd@kiwi-computer.com>
To:        Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au>
Cc:        freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: Writing contigiously to UFS2?
Message-ID:  <20070926171756.GB41567@keira.kiwi-computer.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070926175943.H58990@delplex.bde.org>
References:  <46F3A64C.4090507@fluffles.net> <46F3B4B0.40606@freebsd.org> <fd0em7$8hn$1@sea.gmane.org> <20070921131919.GA46759@in-addr.com> <fd0gk8$f0d$2@sea.gmane.org> <20070921133127.GB46759@in-addr.com> <20070922022524.X43853@delplex.bde.org> <20070926031219.GB34186@keira.kiwi-computer.com> <20070926175943.H58990@delplex.bde.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 06:37:18PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Rick C. Petty wrote:
> 
> >On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 04:10:19AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >>
> >>of disk can be mapped.  I get 180MB in practice, with an inode bitmap
> >>size of only 3K, so there is not much to be gained by tuning -i but
> >
> >I disagree.  There is much to be gained by tuning -i: 224.50 MB per CG vs.
> >183.77 MB..  that's a 22% difference.
> 
> That's a 22% reduction in seeks where the cost of seeking every 187MB
> is a few mS every second.  Say the disk speed 61MB/S and the seek cost
> is 15 mS.  Then we waste 15 mS every 3 seconds with 183 MB cg's, or 2%.
> After saving 22%, we waste only 1.8%.

I'm not sure why this discussion has moved into speed/performance
comparisons.  I'm saying 22% difference in CG size.

> Since I
> got to within 1% of the raw disk speed, there is little more to be
> gained in speed here.  (The OP's problem was not speed.)

I agree-- why are you discussing speed?  I mean, it's interesting.  But I
was only discussing CG sizes and suggesting using the inode density option
to reduce the amount of space "wasted" with filesystem metadata.

I do think the performance differences are interesting, but how much of the
differences are irrelevant when looking at modern drives with tagged
queuing, large I/O caches, and reordered block operations?

-- Rick C. Petty



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070926171756.GB41567>