Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 03:08:58 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, <cvs-all@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/ufs/ufs ufs_dirhash.c Message-ID: <20020322030707.F3059-100000@patrocles.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <200203202001.aa48408@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, David Malone wrote: > > > mean #probes for > > > home dir mh inbox news/cancel tmp squid2 squid3 > > > old successful 1.02 3.19 4.07 1.10 7.85 2.06 > > > new successful 1.04 1.32 1.27 1.04 1.93 1.17 > > > > > > old unsuccessful 1.08 4.50 5.37 1.17 10.76 2.69 > > > new unsuccessful 1.08 1.73 1.64 1.17 2.89 1.37 > > > What do the numbers look like w/o DIRHASH? I'm curious... > > The closest thing I could produce to a direct comparison would be > the number of blocks fetched from the buffer cache. For a successful > lookup this is (dirsize/2) and for an unsuccessful lookup (dirsize). > For the table above: > > home dir mh inbox news/cancel tmp squid2 squid3 > unsuccessful 47 58 3987 24 8 13 > successful 23.5 29 1993.5 12 4 6.5 Hmph. Here I thought you were increasing performance enormously, and it turns out that the "old" DIRHASH is still far better than the baseline. Oh well... :) 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?20020322030707.F3059-100000>