Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:57:08 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Interesting speed benchmarks Message-ID: <20070130075708.GB892@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <17854.27369.656331.328734@jerusalem.litteratus.org> References: <20070126224352.GD927@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <17854.27369.656331.328734@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Mon, 2007-Jan-29 16:45:13 -0500, Robert Huff wrote: >huff@>>dump 0 -D /tmp/DF -Lau -f /dev/null /usr >& /tmp/null_dump I'd drop the '-u' and '-D' and add a '-C'. When sizing the cache, take into account that each dump subprocess (typically around 5) will allocate that much RAM. >huff@>>cat /tmp/null_dump ... > DUMP: DUMP: 27485576 tape blocks on 1 volume > DUMP: finished in 13818 seconds, throughput 1989 KBytes/sec That is not good. Presumably the dmesg output looks sane (ie it's not running narrow SCSI-1) and dd (or similar) report decent thruput. Can you provide some more details on the FS? What are the block and frag sizes and how many inodes are used? -- Peter Jeremy [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFvvpT/opHv/APuIcRAmj/AJ9qz6VFBkeiiNJqMClyBBqWYGxMQwCgsjhg fsAXVq8oVWKk3rVgyTuudao= =ZpKE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070130075708.GB892>