On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 13:27 -0800, Chen Guo wrote: > Hi Shaun, > Last year someone named Glen Lenker did something like that, and I > think the patch was rejected because the maintainers didn't see enough > speed up as the number of CPUs got higher.
Thanks. I'll definitely look into this. > As for buffer size, I highly doubt using 8 mb, even if we're magically > guaranteed to get 100% of the cpu cache, would work better than a larger > buffer. > > The main reason would be for larger files, you'd have to repeatedly write > temporary files out to disk, then merge those temporary files. Whatever > time you save talking to cache is more than lost to the extra time talking > to disk. What if the temporary files were stored in RAM (i.e. tmpfs) rather than on magnetic disk? Cheers, Shaun
