From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 13 17:41:24 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C6F816A407 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:41:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from michel@lucenet.com.br) Received: from msrv.matik.com.br (msrv.matik.com.br [200.152.83.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1977713C428 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:41:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from michel@lucenet.com.br) Received: from webmail.matik.com.br (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msrv.matik.com.br (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l0DHfK1l043621; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:41:20 -0200 (BRST) (envelope-from michel@lucenet.com.br) Received: from 200.152.83.36 (SquirrelMail authenticated user luc.michel) by webmail.matik.com.br with HTTP; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:41:21 -0200 (BRST) Message-ID: <64857.200.152.83.36.1168710081.squirrel@webmail.matik.com.br> In-Reply-To: <20070113164232.GA34348@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <64656.200.152.83.36.1168651673.squirrel@webmail.matik.com.br> <45A87878.1050505@paradise.net.nz> <63758.200.152.83.36.1168689227.squirrel@webmail.matik.com.br> <20070113164232.GA34348@xor.obsecurity.org> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:41:21 -0200 (BRST) From: "Michel Santos" To: "Kris Kennaway" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Mark Kirkwood Subject: Re: diskio low read performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:41:24 -0000 Kris Kennaway disse na ultima mensagem: > On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 09:53:47AM -0200, Michel Santos wrote: > >> I forgot to say that I tried it already. Even if it gave me no >> improvement >> I have it in 16 at this time together with a higher >> vfs.ufs.dirhash_maxmem >> value. >> >> Sincerley, any of the configuration changes I did gave me absolutely >> nothing in relationship to the disk read access performance. That is >> disappointing. >> >> Should I go back and try ufs1 perhaps? Or is it that squid does not work >> well on 6.2? > > Is it the same version of squid, same configuration, etc? > > Kris > Yes, if you used to squid I am running the last 2.5-Stable14 version which run best on 4.11 Michel computador é como nem cavalo e mulher mais que montam neles, pior que ficam ... **************************************************** Datacenter Matik http://datacenter.matik.com.br E-Mail e Data Hosting Service para Profissionais. ****************************************************