On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, dean gaudet wrote:
> is this across loopback?
>
> if so then it's useless for performance tuning/measurement. you gotta use
> a real network, and a beefy enough client to get any meaningful results.
I assumed that would make a difference... I just wanted to make sure we
weren't doing something *ridiculously* stupid. =-)
> that said, you might want to use lmbench <ftp://ftp.bitmover.com/lmbench/>
> to study what file open times are like under linux. they're pretty damn
> small. linux's dcache kicks a lot of ass... and in the end, userland
> caching of stuff like this just means you're duplicating efforts. that
> means a waste of L2, which will have a non-linear decrease on your
> performance.
I'd wondered if that might not be the case. It makes sense. I'm in the
middle of running my tests again, and give or take a margin of error, it's
pretty much exactly the same regardless of whether you use the cachefile
directive or not. MMapFile speeds things up a tad, but not much. I'll
post those (also useless ;-) numbers a little later.
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charlottesville, VA
