for performance testing why not copy from ramfs on one machine to ramfs on another?
the suggestion from a 9con passim was to have fossil/cwfs/hjfs etc add a Qid type flag to files indicating they are from backing store (QTSTABLE ?)and thus may be copied in parallel. devices and synthetic would not normally have this flag forcing the read or write be sequential. you could even make the file server set this flag only on files that have not changed in X days, and thus the contents are more likely to be stable (idea from the SRC package from DEC) perhaps i missed something but i always thought the idea had legs. -Steve > On 1 Jun 2022, at 4:56 pm, Jacob Moody <mo...@posixcafe.org> wrote: > > hjfs is not exactly known for it's speed[0]. Running a cwfs > without a worm[1] is likely a more interesting comparison. > > I also would recommend using kvik's clone[2] for copying > in parallel. > > Would be curious how that stacks up. > > Thanks, > moody > > [0] http://fqa.9front.org/fqa4.html#4.3.6 > [1] http://fqa.9front.org/fqa4.html#4.3.6.1 > [2] https://git.sr.ht/~kvik/clone ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T769854fafd2b7d35-M45fdc663ef275e87c9b77f37 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
