From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Feb 17 19:11: 7 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from peach.ocn.ne.jp (peach.ocn.ne.jp [210.145.254.87]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EB9E37B64D for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:11:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dcs@newsguy.com) Received: from newsguy.com (p35-dn02kiryunisiki.gunma.ocn.ne.jp [211.0.245.100]) by peach.ocn.ne.jp (8.9.1a/OCN) with ESMTP id MAA19419; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:10:57 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <38ACAF8B.65E314E9@newsguy.com> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:33:47 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pt-BR,ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Cc: Brad Knowles , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Initial performance testing w/ postmark & softupdates... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Tom wrote: > > Not really. You could just use async updates instead of softupdates. > Or an OS that uses async updates. Write caching metadata is always faster > than re-ordering it intelligently. Softupdates reduces the number of writes needed. It can coalesce writes to the same block. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org "If you consider our help impolite, you should see the manager." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message