Re: dump(8) performance

2006-06-02 Thread Zaphod Beeblebrox
On 5/31/06, Eugene M. Kim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan Nelson wrote: Are you using the -C option to dump? I would expact that to help more in the dumping directories step, but it might help later phases too. Yep, -C32. I'm a pretty big fan of using team (ports/misc/team). Team

Re: dump(8) performance

2006-06-02 Thread Dan Nelson
In the last episode (May 31), Zaphod Beeblebrox said: On 5/31/06, Eugene M. Kim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan Nelson wrote: Are you using the -C option to dump? I would expact that to help more in the dumping directories step, but it might help later phases too. Yep, -C32. I'm a

dump(8) performance

2006-05-31 Thread Eugene M. Kim
While watching the output of iostat -dxz -w10 -n100 to monitor the progress/performance of a dump(8) process straight to a tape, I found out something interesting and disappointing at the same time: The disk read throughput was exactly twice as high as the tape write throughput, throughout the

Re: dump(8) performance

2006-05-31 Thread Dirk Engling
On Wed, 31 May 2006, Eugene M. Kim wrote: read throughput was exactly twice as high as the tape write throughput, throughout the entire dump phases 4 and 5, i.e. dumping actual inodes. Disappointing, because the tape drive utilization (%busy) was lingering around 35%-50% for most of the time;

Re: dump(8) performance

2006-05-31 Thread Dan Nelson
In the last episode (May 31), Eugene M. Kim said: While watching the output of iostat -dxz -w10 -n100 to monitor the progress/performance of a dump(8) process straight to a tape, I found out something interesting and disappointing at the same time: The disk read throughput was exactly twice as

Re: dump(8) performance

2006-05-31 Thread Eugene M. Kim
Dan Nelson wrote: Are you using the -C option to dump? I would expact that to help more in the dumping directories step, but it might help later phases too. Yep, -C32. Eugene ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: dump(8) performance

2006-05-31 Thread Peter Jeremy
On Wed, 2006-May-31 08:05:21 -0700, Eugene M. Kim wrote: While watching the output of iostat -dxz -w10 -n100 to monitor the progress/performance of a dump(8) process straight to a tape, I found out something interesting and disappointing at the same time: The disk read throughput was exactly twice

Re: dump(8) performance

2006-05-31 Thread Greg 'groggy' Lehey
On Wednesday, 31 May 2006 at 8:05:21 -0700, Eugene M. Kim wrote: While watching the output of iostat -dxz -w10 -n100 to monitor the progress/performance of a dump(8) process straight to a tape, I found out something interesting and disappointing at the same time: The disk read throughput was