:    The program should dynamically mess with all the variables until it
:    gets a statistically relevant curve.

    Clarification:  My definition of 'curve' is actually 'N dimensional
    surface' where N is the number of variables... 5 or 6 or so.  Don't
    ask me how it could be represented!  Maybe as a baseline for each
    variable and a spread that covers how the baseline changes with other
    variables.

    -

    I ran the 20000/50000 test with postmark set to 100 subdirectories.
    I've added it to the end.

1000/50000      trans   read    write   (client with 32M of ram)
    UFS+SOFT    264/s   841K/s  860K/s
    NFS          84/s   270K/s  276K/s

1000/50000      trans   read    write   (client with 1G of ram)
    UFS+SOFT    1515/s  4.7M/s  4.8M/s
    NFS         107/s   344K/s  352K/s

20000/50000     trans   read    write   (client with 1G of ram)
    UFS+SOFT    162/s   366K/s  663K/s
    NFS          50/s   125K/s  226K/s

20000/50000     trans   read    write   (1G ram, 100 subdirectories)
    UFS+SOFT    340/s   723K/s  1.31M/s
    NFS          43/s   110K/s  199K/s

    I also ran the tests on a 2-disk stripe CCD (verses a single disk),
    but the results were the same - due to the lack of parallelism I guess
    the disk performance is not a big issue.

    One thing of interest to note, especially as it relates to the
    performance degredation with a larger number of files, is that
    'systat -vm 1' reports an approximately 50% name-cache hit no
    matter what postmark is doing.  In otherwords, postmark is creating
    a new file (namecache miss), opening it (namecache hit), doing some
    I/O, and then closing it.

    In real-life... for example, with a mail or web server, the namecache
    tends to be somewhat more effective then 50%.  The web servers at BEST
    generally had a 95%+ name cache hit rate.  The name cache misses are
    what are causing the lion's share of the directory inefficiencies.

                                        -Matt
                                        Matthew Dillon 
                                        <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to