Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:34:11 -0800 From: Aaron Glenn <aaron.glenn@gmail.com> To: Luke <lukem@cse.unsw.edu.au> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: I've ran out of ideas Message-ID: <18f6019404111819343f2a7967@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0411191411400.11282@wagner.orchestra.cse.unsw.EDU.AU> References: <20041118101026.55888.qmail@web14121.mail.yahoo.com> <20041118105543.10295.qmail@web41208.mail.yahoo.com> <18f6019404111809224fb97c06@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0411191006310.5596@wagner.orchestra.cse.unsw.EDU.AU> <18f6019404111817533b93cbba@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0411191411400.11282@wagner.orchestra.cse.unsw.EDU.AU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:16:51 +1100 (EST), Luke <lukem@cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote: > Increasing the block size of the disk need not imply that the application > is issuing larger reads. Hmm, true. > I have not suggested that you increase the blocksize further. Please read > the above points again. > > As Sean pointed out, if your web server supports sendfile then that would > be a good option. Indeed I misread your email. I do have some sort optimized thttpd package that was sent to me off list. I'll try that out in a few minutes here. I'm also searching for the patch on arch@ that Sean mentioned. > Your recent post which showed poor performance from /dev/zero does bring > the theory that your disk is the bottleneck into question, however you may > still find it is worth trying the above suggestions. I neglected to mention those numbers were taken while pushing 45Mbps out the network. If you add them up you get 93Mbps. aaron.glenn
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?18f6019404111819343f2a7967>