Frank Hofmann writes:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Jeff Davis wrote:
Given your question are you about to come back with a
case where you are not
seeing this?
As a follow-up, I tested this on UFS and ZFS. UFS does very poorly: the
I/O rate drops off quickly when you add
Given your question are you about to come back with a
case where you are not
seeing this?
As a follow-up, I tested this on UFS and ZFS. UFS does very poorly: the I/O
rate drops off quickly when you add processes while reading the same blocks
from the same file at the same time. I don't
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Jeff Davis wrote:
Given your question are you about to come back with a
case where you are not
seeing this?
As a follow-up, I tested this on UFS and ZFS. UFS does very poorly: the I/O
rate drops off quickly when you add processes while reading the same blocks
from the
Given your question are you about to come back with a
case where you are not
seeing this?
Actually, the case where I saw the bad behavior was in Linux using the CFQ I/O
scheduler. When reading the same file sequentially, adding processes
drastically reduced total disk throughput (single
On February 26, 2007 9:05:21 AM -0800 Jeff Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
That got me worried about the project I'm working on, and I wanted to
understand ZFS's caching behavior better to prove to myself that the
problem wouldn't happen under ZFS. Clearly the block will be in cache on
the second
Jeff Davis wrote:
Given your question are you about to come back with a
case where you are not
seeing this?
Actually, the case where I saw the bad behavior was in Linux using the CFQ I/O
scheduler. When reading the same file sequentially, adding processes
drastically reduced total disk
Le 26 févr. 07 à 18:30, Frank Cusack a écrit :
On February 26, 2007 9:05:21 AM -0800 Jeff Davis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That got me worried about the project I'm working on, and I wanted to
understand ZFS's caching behavior better to prove to myself that the
problem wouldn't happen under
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/26/2007 11:36:18 AM:
Jeff Davis wrote:
Given your question are you about to come back with a
case where you are not
seeing this?
Actually, the case where I saw the bad behavior was in Linux using
the CFQ I/O scheduler. When reading the same file
