Re: soft updates performance

[Greg Black]

Alfred Perlstein wrote:

> * 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.

Yes, I ran tunefs as per the manual and I checked with mount.


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