Hello!
imho placing fossil, venti, isect, bloom and swap on single drive is bad
idea.
As written in in http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/venti/venti.html - "The
prototype Venti server is implemented for the Plan 9 operating system in
about 10,000 lines of C. The server runs on a dedicated dual 55
Thanks Anthony.
> I bet if you re-run the same test twice in a
> row, you’re going to see dramatically improved
> performance.
I try to re-run ‘iostats md5sum /386/9pcf’.
Read result is very fast.
first read result is 152KB/s.
second read result is 232MB/s.
> Your write performance in that test
On 4 May 2015 at 19:51, David du Colombier <0in...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've just made some measurements when reading a file:
>
> Vacfs running on the same machine as Venti: 151 KB/s
> Vacfs running on another machine: 5131 KB/s
How many times do you time it on each machine?
Thanks Aram.
> I have spent some time
> debugging this, but unfortunately, I couldn't find the root cause, and
> I just stopped using fossil.
I tried to measure performance effect by replacement of component.
1) mbr or GRUB
2) pbs or pbslba
3) sdata or sdvirtio (sdvirtio is imported from 9legacy
>> I've just made some measurements when reading a file:
>>
>> Vacfs running on the same machine as Venti: 151 KB/s
>> Vacfs running on another machine: 5131 KB/s
>
>
> How many times do you time it on each machine?
Maybe ten times. The results are always the same ~5%.
Also, I restarted vacfs betw
I too see this, and feel, no proof, that things used to be better. I.e. the
first time I read a file from venti it it very, very slow. subsequent reads
from the ram cache are quick.
I think venti used to be faster a few years ago. maybe another effect of this
is the boot time seems slower than
> I too see this, and feel, no proof, that things used to be better. I.e. the
> first time I read a file from venti it it very, very slow. subsequent reads
> from the ram cache are quick.
>
> I think venti used to be faster a few years ago. maybe another effect of this
> is the boot time seems s
On 5 May 2015 at 16:38, David du Colombier <0in...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How many times do you time it on each machine?
>
> Maybe ten times. The results are always the same ~5%.
> Also, I restarted vacfs between each try.
It was the effect of the ram caches that prompted the question.
My experi
semlocks?
anyway, should not be too hard to figure out with /n/dump
--
cinap
Yes, I'm pretty sure it's not related to Fossil, since it happens with
vacfs as well.
Also, Venti was pretty much unchanged during the last few years.
I suspected it was related to the lock change on 2013-09-19.
https://github.com/0intro/plan9/commit/c4d045a91e
But I remember I tried to revert t
It's pretty interesting that at least three people all got exactly
150kB/s on vastly different machines, both real and virtual. Maybe the
number comes from some tick frequency?
--
Aram Hăvărneanu
Hello 9fans,
I just got a used 3 button USB mouse (IBM-M-U35) which is giving me grief
on a fresh 9pi image (board rev 0xe firmware rev: 1427481988). The mouse
works fine plugged into Debian and OS X machines, but on 9pi, moving the
mouse causes the cursor to jump erratically around the screen, al
I have the same firmware, and an ibm m-u0013-o 3 button mouse, on a pi2 and
it's working fine.
I will try my pi1 tonight if I get time.
Steve
> On 6 May 2015, at 00:34, Paul Ivanov wrote:
>
> Hello 9fans,
>
> I just got a used 3 button USB mouse (IBM-M-U35) which is giving me grief on
> a
13 matches
Mail list logo
