I too see this, and feel, no proof, that things used to be better. I.e. the first time I read a file from venti it it very, very slow. subsequent reads from the ram cache are quick.
I think venti used to be faster a few years ago. maybe another effect of this is the boot time seems slower than it used to be. sorry to be vague. -Steve > On 5 May 2015, at 15:47, KADOTA Kyohei <lu...@me.com> wrote: > > Thanks Anthony. > >> I bet if you re-run the same test twice in a >> row, you’re going to see dramatically improved >> performance. > > I try to re-run ‘iostats md5sum /386/9pcf’. > Read result is very fast. > > first read result is 152KB/s. > second read result is 232MB/s. > >> Your write performance in that test isn’t really >> relevant: they’re not hitting the file system at all. > > I think to write 1GB data to filesystem: > > iostats dd -if /dev/zero -of output -ibs 1024k -obs 1024k -count 1024 > > Write result of dd is 31MB/s. > But this test may just write to fossil. It may not write to venti. > >> I’m not sure why you’d see a difference in a >> fossil+venti setup of a different size, but the >> partition size relationships, and the in-memory >> cache size relationships, are what’s mostly important. > > My hardware has 2GB memory. > Plan 9 configurations are almost default. (except /dev/sdC0/bloom) > To increase memory size is difficult, > because memory size is determined by public QEMU/KVM service plan. > > — > kadota
