Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 09:59:57 +0800 From: "Mars G. Miro" <marsgmiro@gmail.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, "Oliver Fromme" <olli@lurza.secnetix.de> Subject: Re: mfs and buildworlds on the SunFire x4600 Message-ID: <28edec3c0705081859k4e875167t8381c9a605f4475a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200705081334.l48DYf9F085322@lurza.secnetix.de> References: <28edec3c0705072045s18a2cb53ia4f66030e4e3fb22@mail.gmail.com> <200705081334.l48DYf9F085322@lurza.secnetix.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/8/07, Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de> wrote: > Mars G. Miro wrote: > > Oliver Fromme wrote: > > > Mars G. Miro wrote: > > > > there's been a lot of threads in teh past that a buildworld on mfs > > > > increases speed --- tho it might not be the appropriate test for > > > > high-end machines (speaking of w/c I just gots a T2000). > > > > > > It depends on what exactly you want to test, and for > > > what reason. You probably have already wasted much > > > more time with your experiments and testing than you > > > can ever save by using mfs for buildworld. > > > > wasted my time? dont think so. > > > > now we know buildworld on mfs dont really matter on high-end machines, > > No, we knew that before. I could have told you. :-) > > That was the first thing I tested when I first had access > to a machine with sufficient RAM, about 10 years ago. > I put /usr/src on an MFS disk, ran buildworld, and was > disappointed. > > > so teh conclusion would be, buildworld isnt teh appropriate test if > > mfs does really speed things up, other apps/tools may be much more > > appropriate --- that or, does mfs speeding things up really work? > > remains to be seen ... > > The only case for which a memory file system is really > faster is when you're handling a huge number of inodes, > for example the ports collection. And even then a real > disk isn't much slower as soon as the whole bunch is in > the cache. > > > > > there's prolly other appropriate apps/tools for mfs-testing ... > > > > > > I don't think it makes much sense to benchmark mfs. > > > It is a known fact that a real tmpfs (like Solaris and > > > Linux have) would be better. I think it's even listed > > > on the FreeBSD ideas web page, but nobody is actively > > > working on it, AFAIK. On the other hand, I'm not 100% > > > convinced that it would be worth the effort either. > > > > > > > it does to me, however, and perhaps other people too ;-) > > Why? I wonder why you are so eager to test MFS? > > > > It would be interesting to see how ZFS on a swap-backed > > > vnode device would perform on FreeBSD 7-current (with > > > and without compression). > > You didn't comment on that one. Aren't you interested in > how a ZFS-based memory disk would perform, as opposed to > a UFS-based one (a.k.a. "MFS")? > > (Of course, performance isn't everything. ZFS has other > features such as compression, checksums and dynamic growth > that might be very useful for a memory disk.) > I would if I could, but 200704 CURRENT doesnt run on the x4600, exhibiting similar issues as w/ the x4100 that i posted last month in -current. > Best regards > Oliver > > -- > Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. > Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Gesch=E4ftsfuehrun= g: > secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht M=FC= n- > chen, HRB 125758, Gesch=E4ftsf=FChrer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Geb= hart > > FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd > > "To this day, many C programmers believe that 'strong typing' > just means pounding extra hard on the keyboard." > -- Peter van der Linden > cheers mars
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?28edec3c0705081859k4e875167t8381c9a605f4475a>