From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 4 23:27:37 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE94416A46D for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2007 23:27:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAB6313C44B for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2007 23:27:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ED011A3C19; Mon, 4 Jun 2007 16:28:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rot13.obsecurity.org (rot13.obsecurity.org [192.168.1.5]) by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22DE1512C2; Mon, 4 Jun 2007 19:27:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by rot13.obsecurity.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 0F125C204; Mon, 4 Jun 2007 19:27:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 19:27:37 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway To: Tim Daneliuk Message-ID: <20070604232737.GA32602@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: <466451CA.6020108@tundraware.com> <4664572A.4060003@freebsd.org> <3aaaa3a0706041254r257e1480g872faa6e504df6dc@mail.gmail.com> <20070604223021.GA31853@rot13.obsecurity.org> <46649B33.6040107@tundraware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46649B33.6040107@tundraware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: New != Faster X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:27:38 -0000 On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:07:31PM -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: > >On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:54:50PM +0100, Chris wrote: > >>On 04/06/07, Colin Percival wrote: > > >>both of these have been confirmed numerous times by different people > >>so sweeping them under the carpet and saying they simply not true > >>would be wrong. > > > >My detailed measurements of disk performance and those of others I am > >aware of contradicts your claim: 6.x equals or outperforms 4.x on disk > >I/O (depends on driver) and filesystem I/O. The only true part of it > >is the "under QUOTA" part, which as you know from past discussions, is > >still under Giant in 6.x. As you also know, there is a patch to > >address this which is awaiting user testing. Have you tested it yet? > > > >Kris > > Kris - > > It's been awhile since I tracked -current, so forgive me if this is > a stupid question but ... Is it the case that the 6.x drivers are > all now SMP-safe or do some still live under GIANT? There are still some storage drivers in 6.x that are giant-locked. Note that in most cases this doesn't really matter, since typically there is very little else on the system that uses Giant, so there is little contention with other systems and performance is good. One situation where it would hurt on 6.x is if you have quotas enabled. Kris