Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 18:10:45 -0500 From: David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: ragnar@sysabend.org (Jamie Bowden), eivind@FreeBSD.ORG, scrappy@hub.org, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SGI, XFS and OSS? Message-ID: <199905212310.SAA72816@nospam.hiwaay.net> In-Reply-To: Message from Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> of "Fri, 21 May 1999 21:35:48 -0000." <199905212135.OAA03301@usr07.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert writes: > > XFS on an indy R4600/133mhz with ultra-narrow drives on a scsi2-fast > > controller did better than my K6/233mhz with AHA-2940UW with UW drives for > > large directory reads and writes. > > This is not a useful comparison. Partly I agree. The Indy series are/were the bottom of the line at SGI when they were introduced. When monitored a huge "rm -rf" doesn't consume much CPU time on either Irix or FreeBSD so CPU speed and bus bandwidth don't appear to be limiting factor. If I still had my Irix systems I'd pit a 400 MHz P-II with any SCSI HD and speed against a 64MB Indy R5000 with narrow 10M Byte/Sec SCSI and similar HD. What I have noticed with either FreeBSD or Irix, the disk transactions around 100 to 150 per second. XFS appears to get more milage per transaction, or its caching somewhere. Most likely its caching in its log partition. Others have observed FreeBSD with softupdates sounds like the HD has a heartbeat. I agree. But its nothing like a busy XFS filesystem. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@nospam.hiwaay.net ===================================================================== The human mind ordinarily operates at only ten percent of its capacity -- the rest is overhead for the operating system. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199905212310.SAA72816>