From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 9 01:59:58 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0AED16A404 for ; Wed, 9 May 2007 01:59:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marsgmiro@gmail.com) Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com (wr-out-0506.google.com [64.233.184.232]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8095513C45B for ; Wed, 9 May 2007 01:59:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marsgmiro@gmail.com) Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 70so37640wra for ; Tue, 08 May 2007 18:59:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=nt/by2WTSAchZSKu/XR4hW+NNpY7KUB3HRDuko8r2KlL8iQ/fLek9soZN9uSqQMkE4+s2+lyhxwWcQpNQmc838n34C0sGgEhjS2yR0Ej7Zf9evPH0ApuaJsxscI5CGaKzjLoJ7wbETcok8RD+DFREAhCBLKWc0cmIuWsVuac6kE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=mZDSgB2TjFeZRk9YaAJRtzyNW0U0CZQL29wKRqnclByx7/3HI/lpNDHn7kfPIgGufIXyjaQcaVZDYrKmI2x/gsrtoitXgG/j1f5itOAxc5aORaYiEuvrJofY+6y5ojt/jZGut0wNLH0T32YjT8d5y31Agjt3i/Vai1Ft+Ajssfo= Received: by 10.115.18.1 with SMTP id v1mr18881wai.1178675997406; Tue, 08 May 2007 18:59:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.59.16 with HTTP; Tue, 8 May 2007 18:59:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <28edec3c0705081859k4e875167t8381c9a605f4475a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 09:59:57 +0800 From: "Mars G. Miro" To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, "Oliver Fromme" In-Reply-To: <200705081334.l48DYf9F085322@lurza.secnetix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <28edec3c0705072045s18a2cb53ia4f66030e4e3fb22@mail.gmail.com> <200705081334.l48DYf9F085322@lurza.secnetix.de> Cc: Subject: Re: mfs and buildworlds on the SunFire x4600 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 01:59:58 -0000 On 5/8/07, Oliver Fromme 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