Re: soft updates performance

[Alfred Perlstein]

* Greg Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010210 23:33] wrote:
> 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?
> 

Does 'mount' actually show softupdates as active?  If not you
need to run 'tunefs' on the partition to set them active.

-- 
-Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
"I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."


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