At 12:49 PM -0800 2000/2/17, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Depending on how temporary your temporary files are, it'd be
interesting to see if the 4.0 optimizations benifit your benchmark
and also remain stable.
Yup, that would be an interesting question.
Would it be possible for you
On Thursday, 17 February 2000 at 10:35:17 -0800, Parag Patel wrote:
Hello. I have a friend's quad PPro box temporarily sitting in my garage
that I've been using to play with 4.0-CURRENT and vinum. Since the last
series of bug-fixes a few weeks ago, everything works as advertised.
Just for
On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 08:50:06 +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
Could you change the values of VINUM_MAXACTIVE and
DRIVE_MAXACTIVE (in /sys/dev/vinum/vinumvar.h) to 3 each
(effectively disabling the throttling), recompile the kld and try
again please?
It didn't make any significant difference:
find
Hello. I have a friend's quad PPro box temporarily sitting in my garage
that I've been using to play with 4.0-CURRENT and vinum. Since the last
series of bug-fixes a few weeks ago, everything works as advertised.
Just for my own curiosity, I've been running some simple (probably
questionable)
At 10:35 AM -0800 2000/2/17, Parag Patel wrote:
Hello. I have a friend's quad PPro box temporarily sitting in my garage
that I've been using to play with 4.0-CURRENT and vinum. Since the last
series of bug-fixes a few weeks ago, everything works as advertised.
While we're on
* Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000217 12:45] wrote:
At 10:35 AM -0800 2000/2/17, Parag Patel wrote:
Hello. I have a friend's quad PPro box temporarily sitting in my garage
that I've been using to play with 4.0-CURRENT and vinum. Since the last
series of bug-fixes a few weeks ago,
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:14:20 +0100, Brad Knowles wrote:
While we're on this subject, I recently did some benchmarking
with just a single disk on a machine running 3.4-STABLE, both with
and without softupdates. I haven't yet gotten a chance to test it
with vinum and softupdates, but
