From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 10 20:01:38 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DD8A16A524; Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:01:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from w@expro.pl) Received: from mailin1.expro.pl (mailin1.expro.pl [193.25.166.20]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 833EE43D46; Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:01:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from w@expro.pl) Received: from europa-1.dmz.exprozone ([10.0.16.45] helo=europa.expro.pl) (envelope-sender ) by mailin1.expro.pl with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GBGil-0004Pu-Ow; Thu, 10 Aug 2006 22:01:35 +0200 Received: by europa.expro.pl (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 13FAF536116; Thu, 10 Aug 2006 22:01:35 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 22:01:35 +0200 From: Jan Srzednicki To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek Message-ID: <20060810200135.GF57857@europa.expro.pl> References: <20060808195202.GA1564@garage.freebsd.pl> <20060810192152.GE57857@europa.expro.pl> <20060810194304.GB1345@garage.freebsd.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060810194304.GB1345@garage.freebsd.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: GJournal (hopefully) final patches. X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:01:38 -0000 On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 09:43:04PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 09:21:52PM +0200, Jan Srzednicki wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I'd happily perform some testing, only if the aac(4) driver would also > > be patched. I know I can run gjournal w/o the BIO_FLUSH feature, but > > that would make any performance results rather worthles, wouldn't it? > > From my tests BIO_FLUSH doesn't have huge impact on performance (if at > all), but I suspect it greatly depends on specific HW. > > Unfortunately I'm not able to implement BIO_FLUSH to all out storage > drivers. Currently BIO_FLUSH is supported by ata(4) (/dev/a[dr]X), > da(4) and amr(4). I see. Does that mean that all CAM-interfaced devices (like asr(4) or twa(4)) have this feature fully implemented? -- Jan Srzednicki w@expro.pl