On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 16:14:21 EST erik quanstrom <quans...@quanstro.net> wrote: > > 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 didn't say plan9 "suffers". Merely that one has to look at other aspects as well (implying putting in Tstream may not make a huge difference). > 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.) This is for dd </dev/zero >/dev/null? What do you get for various block sizes? If you are getting 620MBps that means you will definitely not exceed that number for disk based filesystems.
