Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 25 Apr 2005 08:21:06 +0200
From:      Kirill Ponomarew <krion@voodoo.oberon.net>
To:        Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Cc:        Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD 6 is coming too fast
Message-ID:  <20050425062106.GB91852@voodoo.oberon.net>
In-Reply-To: <20050425061459.GA33247@xor.obsecurity.org>
References:  <20050424175543.71041.qmail@web51805.mail.yahoo.com> <20050424151517.O68772@lexi.siliconlandmark.com> <3822.216.177.243.38.1114385370.localmail@webmail.dnswatch.com> <20050425000459.GA28667@xor.obsecurity.org> <6.2.1.2.0.20050424204611.072105a0@64.7.153.2> <20050425010242.GA44110@xor.obsecurity.org> <6.2.1.2.0.20050424210422.03d22990@64.7.153.2> <20050425014453.GA59981@xor.obsecurity.org> <426C6B1D.3040704@elischer.org> <20050425061459.GA33247@xor.obsecurity.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 11:14:59PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > >Measuring disk device performance (i.e. running a benchmark against
> > >the bare device) and filesystem performance (writing to a filesystem
> > >on the device) are very different things.
> > 
> > I wish people would stop trying to deny that we have serious work in front 
> > of us to get the VFS and disk IO figures back to where they were before.
> > 
> > there ARE slowdowns and I have seen it both with tests on teh basic 
> > hardware and throug the filesystems.  I don't know why this surproses 
> > people because we have still a lot of work to do in teh interrupt latency 
> > field for example, and I doubt that even PHK would say that there is no 
> > work left to do in geom.
> > Where we are now is closing in on "feature complete". Now we need to 
> > profile and optimise.
> 
> OK, but note that I didn't deny anything, I only questioned whether
> the OP was observing a real problem (he didn't mention disk I/O, or in
> fact any specific claim) or whether it was a coloured perception based
> on the (incorrect) assumption that gcc compilation speed was measuring
> a performance loss in FreeBSD.

According to gcc-4.0 release notes, compilation speed for C++ was
dramatically increased, up to 25% IIRC.  I think 4.0 is good
candidate for merging into HEAD.

-Kirill



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050425062106.GB91852>