From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Apr 24 18:31: 8 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from news-ma.rhein-neckar.de (news-ma.rhein-neckar.de [193.197.90.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7484015512 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 18:30:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de) Received: from mips.rhein-neckar.de (uucp@localhost) by news-ma.rhein-neckar.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with bsmtp id DAA02949 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 03:30:53 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de) Received: by mips.rhein-neckar.de id m10bCrz-000WyWC (Debian Smail-3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #2); Sun, 25 Apr 1999 02:34:03 +0200 (CEST) From: naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de (Christian Weisgerber) Subject: Re: writing slower with SoftUpdates Date: 25 Apr 1999 02:34:00 +0200 Message-ID: <7ftnto$top$1@mips.rhein-neckar.de> References: <199904212008.QAA57336@misha.cisco.com> <19990422163120.A48347@dan.emsphone.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Dan Nelson wrote: > If these are in fact identical drives, I would start looking at the > mode pages on the first drive to see if you have write caching turned > on. Softupdates usually prefers to cache data itself, and you can get > degraded performance if the drive is doing caching too. In what way do soft updates perform additional caching? And why should this interact badly with drive caching? Disabling the drive's write caching seems like an excellent way to cripple the drive to me. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de See another pointless homepage at . To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message