Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:58:42 +0200 From: Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org> To: Glenn Dawson <glenn@antimatter.net> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: More into /etc/rc.d/jail Message-ID: <20050810205842.GL45385@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20050810110527.05eb2bf0@cobalt.antimatter.net> References: <N1-uLBXxM-zn8@Safe-mail.net> <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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050810205842.GL45385>