From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 10 20:58:31 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7376C16A41F for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:58:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org) Received: from postfix3-2.free.fr (postfix3-2.free.fr [213.228.0.169]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E14E543D49 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:58:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org) Received: from tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (vol75-8-82-233-239-98.fbx.proxad.net [82.233.239.98]) by postfix3-2.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF09DC103; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:58:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: by tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5D33E405B; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:58:42 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:58:42 +0200 From: Jeremie Le Hen To: Glenn Dawson Message-ID: <20050810205842.GL45385@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> References: <20050809214330.GZ45385@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <6.1.0.6.2.20050809161133.01beac70@cobalt.antimatter.net> <20050810103118.GH45385@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <6.1.0.6.2.20050810110527.05eb2bf0@cobalt.antimatter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20050810110527.05eb2bf0@cobalt.antimatter.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: More into /etc/rc.d/jail X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:58:31 -0000 Glenn, > That is basically what I did. The only real difference is the block size > that you used. (I was using 512 byte blocks) > > It's interesting that you got nearly identical numbers. The test that I > ran was showing about 20Mbytes/sec under 4.x and about 7MB/sec under > 5.x. The only way I could get 5.x to come close to the 4.x numbers was to > use newfs in 4.x and then mount that file system in 5.x. (I had a boot > disk with two slices, 4.x and 5.x, and two other disks in the same machine > that I used for testing.) I think I misunderstood what you said in your first mail. I thought you were saying that a file-backed filesystem created with RELENG_4's newfs(8) behaves differently than later newfs(8). It's silly, and you were in fact obviously comparing md(4) and vn(4) performances. The tests I ran both used md(4). THus they are worthless. I don't have a RELENG_4 on the same computer as my CURRENT, so I won't be able to test this. Sorry for wasting time. Regards, -- Jeremie Le Hen < jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >