From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Feb 10 23:32:39 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from gw.gbch.net (gw.gbch.net [203.24.22.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9415637B401 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 23:32:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 90505 invoked by uid 1001); 11 Feb 2001 17:31:43 +1000 X-Posted-By: GJB-Post 2.12 07-Feb-2001 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.1-RELEASE i386 X-URL: http://www.gbch.net/gjb/ X-Image-URL: http://www.gbch.net/gjb/img/gjb-auug048.gif X-PGP-Fingerprint: 5A91 6942 8CEA 9DAB B95B C249 1CE1 493B 2B5A CE30 X-PGP-Public-Key: http://www.gbch.net/gjb/gjb-pgpkey.asc Message-Id: Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 17:31:43 +1000 From: Greg Black To: Matt Dillon Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: soft updates performance References: <200102102245.f1AMj1328151@earth.backplane.com> In-reply-to: <200102102245.f1AMj1328151@earth.backplane.com> of Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:45:01 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Matt Dillon wrote: > Unless you are doing a read-only mount, there are still going to be > cases where having softupdates turned on can be advantageous. For > example, installworld will go a lot faster. I also consider softupdates > a whole lot safer, even if all you are doing is editing an occassional > file. OK, I'm sold on the general idea of using soft updates; but what sort of performance improvements should I expect to see? I do a kernel compile on a freshly-rebooted box with an without softupdates; without, it took 20m45s and with soft updates it still took 20m10s --- this is less than 3% faster, which is close to statistically insignificant. Is this expected, or is there some other factor I should look at? Greg To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message