Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:35:56 -0800 From: Claus Assmann <freebsd+fs@esmtp.org> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: softupdates and two different MTAs Message-ID: <20040323003556.GA22741@zardoc.esmtp.org> In-Reply-To: <20040319221643.GA90277@dan.emsphone.com> References: <20040317060617.GA23526@zardoc.esmtp.org> <20040319221643.GA90277@dan.emsphone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004, Dan Nelson wrote: > In the last episode (Mar 16), Claus Assmann said: > > | program | FS | writes | reads | > > |---------------+------------------+---------+-------| > > | sm8.12.11 | UFS, softupdates | 236 | 0 | > > | sm9.0.0.12 | UFS, softupdates | 3500 | 4 | > So something is either not fsyncing, or there is clustering going on > behind the scenes. The sm8 softupdates count is disturbingly low, even > assuming good clustering. You are right, it is too low. After following your advice about adding the disk I/O stats to sendmail 8 itself, I finally found that the cf file had SuperSafe=m, which causes it to not issue most of the fsync(2) calls. With SuperSafe=true sm8 uses about twice as many disk writes as sm9 and hence the latter is about two times faster than the former. Thanks for your reply!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040323003556.GA22741>