From owner-freebsd-current Thu Feb 17 12:15:43 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from trinity.skynet.be (trinity.skynet.be [195.238.2.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C00EA37B7EA for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:15:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blk@skynet.be) Received: from [195.238.1.121] (brad.techos.skynet.be [195.238.1.121]) by trinity.skynet.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8BF51235A; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:15:33 +0100 (MET) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: blk@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <74982.950812517@pinhead.parag.codegen.com> References: <74982.950812517@pinhead.parag.codegen.com> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:14:20 +0100 To: Parag Patel , current@FreeBSD.ORG From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: FWIW: More questionable softupdates+vinum benchmarks Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 10:35 AM -0800 2000/2/17, Parag Patel wrote: > Hello. I have a friend's quad PPro box temporarily sitting in my garage > that I've been using to play with 4.0-CURRENT and vinum. Since the last > series of bug-fixes a few weeks ago, everything works as advertised. While we're on this subject, I recently did some benchmarking with just a single disk on a machine running 3.4-STABLE, both with and without softupdates. I haven't yet gotten a chance to test it with vinum and softupdates, but what I got did a pretty good job of impressing me. I won't quote the mail messages here (you can go read freebsd-stable for that, look for message-ids and ), but suffice it to say that for my testing, I saw 3-5x performance increase for the benchmark I was running ("postmark", from Network Appliance). The primary reason I was doing this was to get some sort of idea what kind of performance you might be able to expect if you took an application like a mail server or a USENET news server (with traditional spool), and you re-wrote the application so as to avoid expensive synchronous meta-data operations (which are the things that softupdates tries to optimize out of existance). I'm starting to actually believe that you might really be able to see a real-world 5-10x performance increase, if you did that. In fact, I believe that this is pretty much what admins of boxes running INN are seeing when they use CNFS. Jeez, Louise. -- These are my opinions and should not be taken as official Skynet policy _________________________________________________________________________ |o| Brad Knowles, Belgacom Skynet NV/SA |o| |o| Systems Architect, Mail/News/FTP/Proxy Admin Rue Col. Bourg, 124 |o| |o| Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.13.11/726.93.11 B-1140 Brussels |o| |o| http://www.skynet.be Belgium |o| \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Unix is like a wigwam -- no Gates, no Windows, and an Apache inside. Unix is very user-friendly. It's just picky who its friends are. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message