Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 17:31:43 +1000 From: Greg Black <gjb@gbch.net> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: soft updates performance Message-ID: <nospam-3a863fdf721615e@maxim.gbch.net> In-Reply-To: <200102102245.f1AMj1328151@earth.backplane.com> of Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:45:01 PST References: <200102102245.f1AMj1328151@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? Greg 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?nospam-3a863fdf721615e>