On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 08:48:01AM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Doug Barton writes: > >Kirk, > > > >I'm adding a bunch of people to the list who were involved in a thread > >on -current on this topic. I also tried this change and noticed that > >things did seem a tiny bit snappier (although my system is slow enough > >that it could have just been my imagination). > > All things considered, I think we should just pla to leave it this way > for 5.0-R. Until now people were used to wait for fsck to finish, at > least now they can do something in while it runs.
Well... like I indicated earlier in the thread on -CURRENT, things were definitely *slow*. I also said I would try to provide benchmarks if people told me how to do that (and what to time). In any case, as a rough measurement, starting X on -CURRENT took about 2-3 seconds vs. about half a second on -STABLE on the exact same hardware. It was even measurable on a simple 'ls' in a large directory. I think if this is left in as is, people 'new' to FreeBSD will think it's dead slow, and move on elsewhere. > I belive GEOM provides the framework where we can properly tag I/O > requests with a priority, propagate that priority down to the device > drivers and act accordingly in the disksort disk-scheduling code. If that's the case, I'd like to see it in 5.0R. > That would allow us to address not only the bgfsck but also things > like silly-seek-syndrome and other sub-optimal issues in our current > I/O system. That would be great. --Stijn -- The right half of the brain controls the left half of the body. This means that only left handed people are in their right mind.
msg46035/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
