Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 23:44:58 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> To: Greg Black <gjb@gbch.net> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: soft updates performance Message-ID: <200102110744.f1B7iwS30465@earth.backplane.com> References: <200102102245.f1AMj1328151@earth.backplane.com> <nospam-3a863fdf721615e@maxim.gbch.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
: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
A kernel compile, like a buildworld, is more a cpu-intensive operation
then a disk-intensive operation, so I wouldn't expect a big improvement.
Softupdates wins big on anything that does a lot of directory manipulation.
For example, extracting a tar archive, rm -rf, news systems,
mail systems (to a lesser degree since they fsync() a lot anyway),
and general workloads.
There is no real downside, so there really isn't any reason to *not*
use softupdates.
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102110744.f1B7iwS30465>