From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Sep 10 23:32:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA01543 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 23:32:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from word.smith.net.au (word.smith.net.au [202.0.75.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA01518 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 23:31:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from word.smith.net.au (localhost.smith.net.au [127.0.0.1]) by word.smith.net.au (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA06822; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 16:00:15 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199709110600.QAA06822@word.smith.net.au> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: spork cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mmap and INN In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 11 Sep 1997 01:37:52 -0400." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 16:00:13 +1000 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > I've attached two messages I dug up out of the mail archives that seem to > contradict each other. Gary says mmap + INN is a good thing, and Mike > says it's a bad thing... No, Gary says it works. I've heard plenty of people saying that a) it doesn't always work for them, and b) it's faster without. > Who should I listen to? We're close to going live with a 2.2-stable news > machine, and I'm a bit confused about what INN optimizations to go with. Test it under your own conditions. It's not hard to cut between two versions to compare it with your workload. You will note that this is what I said last time, and I mean it - if you are going to depend on *anything*, whether it be software or a gasket, TEST IT FIRST. mike