On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, Ivan Voras wrote:
On 21 July 2010 06:18, Bruce Evans <b...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, John Baldwin wrote:
Log:
??In keeping with the Age-of-the-fruitbat theme, scale up hirunningspace
on
??machines which can clearly afford the memory.
??This is a somewhat conservative version of the patch - more fine tuning
may be
??necessary.
??Idea from: Thread on hackers@
??Discussed with: alc
Sorry I didn't look at the thread, but I wonder if you should increase
lorunningspace similarly.
The previous ratio of lorunningspace to hirunningspace was 1/2 - is
this still a good target?
I don't know if the ratio is more important than difference. Maybe neither
is very important once the difference is not very small.
It does seem like there would be more benefitial to hang these
variables per mount-point or something similar but I'm content that
they are tunable and that the new values help high-end machines,
probably in cooperation with tagged (NCQ-like) IO.
So the high end machine owners are less capable of tuning? :-) This
might be the case even if they also have higher end money and support,
since the higher end is bleeding edge.
Bruce
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
