Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:00:50 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Greg Black <gjb@gbch.net> Cc: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: soft updates performance Message-ID: <20010211010050.I3274@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <nospam-3a863fdf721615e@maxim.gbch.net>; from gjb@gbch.net on Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 05:31:43PM %2B1000 References: <200102102245.f1AMj1328151@earth.backplane.com> <nospam-3a863fdf721615e@maxim.gbch.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Greg Black <gjb@gbch.net> [010210 23:33] wrote: > Matt Dillon wrote: > > > Unless you are doing a read-only mount, there are still going to be > > cases where having softupdates turned on can be advantageous. For > > example, installworld will go a lot faster. I also consider softupdates > > a whole lot safer, even if all you are doing is editing an occassional > > file. > > OK, I'm sold on the general idea of using soft updates; but what > sort of performance improvements should I expect to see? > > I do a kernel compile on a freshly-rebooted box with an without > softupdates; without, it took 20m45s and with soft updates it > still took 20m10s --- this is less than 3% faster, which is > close to statistically insignificant. Is this expected, or is > there some other factor I should look at? > Does 'mount' actually show softupdates as active? If not you need to run 'tunefs' on the partition to set them active. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010211010050.I3274>