Greg Black wrote:
>
> 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.
Times for cvsup and system builds changed quite a bit if you let the
I/O be handled by the controllers.
buildworld obj on 2nd controller
1516.863u 442.821s 57:17.18 57.0% 1246+1450k 49613+196329io
1866pf+0w
build with log on 3rd controller
1522.877u 455.119s 56:52.29 57.9% 1238+1446k 45803+196359io
1721pf+0w
make world with files on 3 controllers and -j4
1547.296u 553.318s 58:16.61 60.0% 1196+1415k 45943+314666io
1655pf+0w
make world with files on 3 controllers and -j4 with softupdates
1539.114u 521.486s 45:54.82 74.7% 1209+1431k 48857+129907io
1858pf+0w
Kent
--
Kent Stewart
Richland, WA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://kstewart.urx.com/kstewart/index.html
FreeBSD News http://daily.daemonnews.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
