Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:57:30 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-all@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf NOTES src/sys/conf files options src/sys/ufs/ufs dirhash.h ufs_dirhash.c inode.h ufs_inode.c ufs_lookup.c Message-ID: <20010711165558.Q2662-100000@achilles.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <20010711163937.R2662-100000@achilles.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Mike Silbersack wrote: > I did a few runs with "postmark" from the ports tree, and found that > performance was mostly unchanged. I'm not sure if it's a good benchmark, > but investigating why it shows no overall performance increase would > probably be worthwhile for you. A note hear: I may have been rigging the tests accidently. I was using runs of X files and 2X transactions. Now that I think about it, that might mean an average of 2 ops per file, which doesn't really let the cache shine. I'll try with a larger factor and see how it plays out. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010711165558.Q2662-100000>