adrian cockcroft wrote:
Could also be fsflush related, fsflush can indirectly interfere with
streams/network traffic. Bob Sneed told me that the latest patches
include a fix for this problem, or you can increase autoup to reduce
it.
Adrian:
Indeed, the Change Request titled "Interim performance
For the case of mkfile it doesn't really matter, but AFAIK zfs provides more
guarantees than ufs does. Ufs without logging guarantees very little (esp.
if more or less synchronous metadata updates are turned off e.g. with fastfs).
Ufs with logging more or less guarantees filesystem consistency (an
Thank you for your responses. This system is a backup system's extremely busy
media server and is a controlled one, without any quick lived processes. In any
case, I went through previous (automated) ps traces and confirmed the absence
of short lived processes (whatever information I have)
Adr
Ran 3 test using mkfile to create a 6GB on a ufs and ZFS file system.
command ran mkfile -v 6gb /ufs/tmpfile
Test 1 UFS mounted LUN (2m2.373s)
Test 2 UFS mounted LUN with directio option (5m31.802s)
Test 3 ZFS LUN (Single LUN in a pool) (3m13.126s)
Sunfire V120
1 Qlogic 2340
Solaris 10 06/06
Hi Roland,
Roland Mainz wrote:
Hi!
Is there any special handling of process groups to make sure that
processes (and their LWPs) are kept together ?
Think about an (imaginary (and simplified)) machine with 4 strands per
core, 4 cores per socket, 4 sockets per board and 4 boards per cabine
I ran LibMicro tools on a T2000 and I'm wondering if I should use T2000
specificl compilation option or not .
I intend to use the tools to compare T2000 versus V890
JP
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
perf-discuss mailing list
perf-di
