## On 2002-04-27 14:40 +0200 Mikael Olsson typed: MO> MO> Rafi Sadowsky wrote: MO> > MO> > [on syslog performance and delayed writes] MO> > Wouldn't you agree that benchmarking the effect on Disk I/O is at MO> > least as relevant as the effect on the CPU ? MO> MO> If this box did a lot more than receive syslogs -- yes, it would MO> be relevant. However, an overloaded disk i/o bus results in MO> the the disk i/o calls blocking, which results in higher CPU, MO> so in the simple case
I assume that indicates one EIDE disk ? MO> , low CPU == no real problem with disk i/o. [This is not an OS advocacy invitation - though feel welcome to correct me if I'm wrong] You didn't answer whether it's Linux or not - for Linux & Solaris indeed You're(probably?) right but for(example) FreeBSD the CPU usage doesn't (seem to) climb in direct correlation with disk I/O blocking MO> MO> And 1GB per day isn't a problem for _any_ modern disk. Oh come on - I'm sure you realize that the disk seek time is the limiting factor ant not the peak/burst transfer speed (assume syslogd is logging to more than one file) MO> MO> Heck, even floppy can save about 1MB a minute, and there are MO> 1440 minutes per day, so even assuming a disk as slow as MO> a floppy, you should still be able to receive more than 100 MO> syslog entries per second. (Although in _that_ case, you _would_ MO> see high CPU loads ;)) MO> MO> MO> _______________________________________________ Firewalls mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Account Management (unsubscribe, get/change password, etc) Please go to: http://lists.gnac.net/mailman/listinfo/firewalls
