Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 14:32:06 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Prioritized bio patches. (Updated patch) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202191430520.58281-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20020219171504.T12686-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > First of all, I updated the patch. When I merged it in from our sources I > missed a one line change that fixed a race condition. I also changed the > priority level of NORMAL to 6 so that I could avoid all of the -1's to > index the low priority queue. > > Secondly, I ran a simple test of a kernel compile. The test system has > one disk. I did a dd of /dev/zero to a file in a users home directory > with a nice of 20 while doing a kernel compile. The original compile took > 11 minutes and 32 seconds. The compile with the dd going took 15 minutes > and 12 seconds. What did it take with the dd going and without your changes? How did it work out for the VOD system? > > I originally did this work for VOD server. The idea being that the VOD > data was guaranteed and the rest of the system would just have to wait. > This was not based on process nice values. Each sub system had a hard > coded priority, that in some cases correlated to a different sorting > algorithm. When I saw the background fsck work I realized that this could > be beneficial to everyone if it was tied to nice. > > Jeff To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0202191430520.58281-100000>