From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 23 04:25:01 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CBD916A401; Fri, 23 Feb 2007 04:25:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@www.svzserv.kemerovo.su) Received: from www.svzserv.kemerovo.su (www.svzserv.kemerovo.su [213.184.65.80]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78C7413C48D; Fri, 23 Feb 2007 04:25:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@www.svzserv.kemerovo.su) Received: from www.svzserv.kemerovo.su (eugen@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.svzserv.kemerovo.su (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l1N3uILQ064193; Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:56:18 +0700 (KRAT) (envelope-from eugen@www.svzserv.kemerovo.su) Received: (from eugen@localhost) by www.svzserv.kemerovo.su (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l1N3uHmn064192; Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:56:17 +0700 (KRAT) (envelope-from eugen) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:56:17 +0700 From: Eugene Grosbein To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20070223035617.GA18955@svzserv.kemerovo.su> References: <20070220182113.GC853@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <200702211113.l1LBDbQn006859@lurza.secnetix.de> <5f67a8c40702220937h21dc6963r77637ba369549e25@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5f67a8c40702220937h21dc6963r77637ba369549e25@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:41:13 +0000 Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Abyssmal dump cache efficiency X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 04:25:01 -0000 On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:37:00PM -0500, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: > >Peter Jeremy wrote: > >> I've found that you do get a worthwhile improvement in dump|restore > >> performance by introducing a large (10's of MB) fifo between them. > >> This helps reduce synchronisation between dump and restore (so that > >> dump can continue to read whilst restore is busy writing a batch of > >> small files and vice versa). There's a suitable port but I can't > >> recall the name because I wrote my own. > > > >There are several. The most popular ones are probably > >misc/team and misc/buffer. > > I can certainly vouch for that , too. I generally use "team 1m 32" (total > of 32meg of buffer). Team seems to not want to buffer more than 1m per > process and I think 32 is the max # of processes. Someone, please take a look at trivial patch for team's buffer size here: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/106806 The maintainer timeout for the PR has occured long time ago. Eugene Grosbein