Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:25:33 +0300 From: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: DFLTPHYS vs MAXPHYS Message-ID: <4A53931D.6040307@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200907071636.n67GagxN087660@apollo.backplane.com> References: <1246746182.00135530.1246735202@10.7.7.3> <1246792983.00135712.1246781401@10.7.7.3> <1246796580.00135722.1246783203@10.7.7.3> <1246814582.00135806.1246803602@10.7.7.3> <1246818181.00135809.1246804804@10.7.7.3> <1246825383.00135846.1246812602@10.7.7.3> <1246825385.00135854.1246814404@10.7.7.3> <1246830930.00135868.1246819202@10.7.7.3> <1246830933.00135875.1246820402@10.7.7.3> <1246908182.00136258.1246896003@10.7.7.3> <1246911786.00136277.1246900203@10.7.7.3> <1246915383.00136290.1246904409@10.7.7.3> <4A534D05.1040709@FreeBSD.org> <200907071636.n67GagxN087660@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Dillon wrote: > That isn't correct. Locality of reference for adjacent data is very > important even if the filesystem only needs a small amount of data. All I wanted to say, is that it is FS privilege to decide how much data it needs. But when it really needs a lot of data, they should be better transferred with smaller number of bigger transactions, without strict MAXPHYS limitation. -- Alexander Motin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A53931D.6040307>