> The point of mentioning FreeBSD numbers is to show what is > possible. To really improve plan9 fs performance one would > have to look at things like syscall overhead, number of data > copies made, number of syscalls and context switches etc. and > tune each component.
i don't see any evidence that plan 9 suffers in system call overhead time, etc. do you have some numbers that say it does? i also think that your examples don't translate well into the plan 9 world. we trade performance for keeping ramfs out of the kernel, etc. (620mb/s on my much slower machine, btw.) comparing to a fuse ramfs would be more apt. - erik
