From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 16 06:16:52 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D6316A4CE for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:16:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.ciam.ru (mail.ciam.ru [213.147.57.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D34C43D53 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:16:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sem@FreeBSD.org) Received: from msd-mtu.mbrd.ru ([195.34.35.77] helo=[172.16.4.9]) by mail.ciam.ru with esmtpa (Exim 4.x) id 1DBRpi-000Cje-Kx; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:16:42 +0300 Message-ID: <4237CF47.1010806@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:16:39 +0300 From: Sergey Matveychuk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217 X-Accept-Language: ru, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Roberson References: <87is46kzk1.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> <41C26F23F7DF023CB3DF35C5@cc-171.int.t-online.fr> <20050305151903.GC26240@hub.freebsd.org> <87mzth18e2.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> <1DE178D508C1D70D1B5F9E87@cc-171.int.t-online.fr> <874qfpupk5.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> <423027B1.8080503@FreeBSD.org> <34cb7c84050310091243cdc342@mail.gmail.com> <4234410C.5080804@FreeBSD.org> <20050315085943.A20708@mail.chesapeake.net> In-Reply-To: <20050315085943.A20708@mail.chesapeake.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: Denis Shaposhnikov cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Mathieu Arnold cc: Peter Edwards Subject: Re: unionfs 5.4 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:16:53 -0000 Jeff Roberson wrote: >>just ffs: 1:47 min >>nullfs: 1:43 min (oops!:) >>nullfs in jail: 12:12 min >> >>Almost ten times degradation. > > > Can you try this again on current? I just committed some changes to > nullfs which vastly simplify the locking. I don't see anything inherent > in the code that should cause such a slowdown. The problem has gone. Thanks Jeff! Don't forget MFC it some time :) -- Sem.