From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Sep 30 16:22:14 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mail.nipsi.de (dsl-213-023-032-068.arcor-ip.net [213.23.32.68]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E994837B40F for ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 16:18:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 946 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2001 23:15:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nipsi.de) (172.16.1.101) by nipsi with SMTP; 30 Sep 2001 23:15:42 -0000 Message-ID: <3BB7A858.E3531219@nipsi.de> Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 01:18:48 +0200 From: Dennis Berger Organization: Nipsi X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [de] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Harding Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dirpref gives massive performance boost References: <200109301550.f8UFoEG02214@cwsys.cwsent.com> <20010930162030.10A5B133C1@netcom1.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I tested FreeBSD-4.4 stable checked out today with a new created filesystem and a old existing one. The results are on the old filesystem with just tar and untaring ports, I can report afaik no speed up. On the new created filesystem the results are very impressive about 6 to 10 times faster. Mike Harding wrote: > So it sounds like there would be some benefit in tar'ing and untarring > /usr/local, /usr/ports, /usr/src, etc. which will be less > disruptive... > > Thanks! > > - Mike H. > > X-Authentication-Warning: cwsys.cwsent.com: smtpd set sender to using -f > Reply-To: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group > From: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group > X-Sender: schubert > Cc: admin@rshb.com.ru, stable@FreeBSD.ORG > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 08:49:47 -0700 > Sender: cy@uumail.gov.bc.ca > X-SpamBouncer: 1.4 (8/24/01) > X-SBClass: OK > > In message <20010930152404.581A8133C1@netcom1.netcom.com>, Mike Harding > writes: > > > > Um - what about my question? Is the newfs necessary? Repartitioning, > > backup, and restore also require a backup medium, etc. > > The more of your filesystem that has had its files allocated using the > new dirpref, the greater the benefit. > > There was a comment made earlier in another thread on another list (see > archives) that the new dirpref has the risk of greater fragmentation. > There were no responses to the comment. I'm not sure whether this is > just a concern someone had or whether the risk is real. The fact that > there were no replies to that comment seems to indicate we just don't > know yet. > > In some OpenBSD mailing list archives (search Google) there were > comments about dirpref + softupdates being 60x faster than UFS without > the two features. > > Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 > Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766 > Team Leader, Sun/Alpha Team Internet: Cy.Schubert@osg.gov.bc.ca > Open Systems Group, ITSD > Ministry of Management Services > Province of BC > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message