From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Feb 12 15:29: 2 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B194337B4EC for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:28:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA91713; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:28:11 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from des@ofug.org) X-URL: http://www.ofug.org/~des/ X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message do not necessarily coincide with those of any organisation or company with which I am or have been affiliated. To: Greg Lehey Cc: Danny Braniss , Matt Dillon , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: soft updates performance References: <20010213095300.D2178@wantadilla.lemis.com> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 13 Feb 2001 00:28:07 +0100 In-Reply-To: Greg Lehey's message of "Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:53:00 +1030" Message-ID: Lines: 16 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Greg Lehey writes: > In fact, it's exactly the opposite. 'make world' is CPU-bound, so the > speed of the I/O system is irrelevant. If it were I/O bound, soft > updates *would* make a difference, because a number of unnecessary > writes would be eliminated. Read what he writes. Soft updates *did* make a difference - they shaved ~30% off his worldstone. It's parallelization that doesn't make a difference in his case, because his CPU and FSB are fast enough that the I/O system is left completely in the dust. This is a 900 MHz box, probably with a 100 MHz or 133 MHz FSB, not the old 486DX33 you have lying in a corner. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message