soft updates performance

[Greg Black]

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message