:
:On Thu, Apr 27, 2000 at 06:32:24PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:> A Swap-backed VN /tmp will work as well, but keep in mind that the
:> sector size is 4K and you should use the appropriate options to
:> vnconfig to pre-reserve the swap space so performance does not degrade
:>
On Thu, Apr 27, 2000 at 06:32:24PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> A Swap-backed VN /tmp will work as well, but keep in mind that the
> sector size is 4K and you should use the appropriate options to
> vnconfig to pre-reserve the swap space so performance does not degrade
> from fra
:Hi Matthew,
:
:On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:
:> I can't imagine why MFS would perform better... it shouldn't, every
:> block is stored in system memory *TWICE* (once in the VM cache, and
:> once in the mfs process's address space). If you have enough system
:
:I've b
Hi Matthew,
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> I can't imagine why MFS would perform better... it shouldn't, every
> block is stored in system memory *TWICE* (once in the VM cache, and
> once in the mfs process's address space). If you have enough system
I've been runni
At 10:16 AM -0700 2000/4/27, Mike Smith wrote:
> I would consider 4.0, several (three or four) strings of LVD disks and
> either a Mylex eXtremeRAID 1100 (64MB or more) or an AMI MegaRAID
> Enterprise 1500. (The 1600 should probably work too, but I haven't seen
> one yet so I can't be sure.)
> I'm seriously contemplating getting a Dell PowerEdge 2450 with
> five internal 10kRPM/18GB disks, 2GB of RAM, two of the fastest
> processors they've got, perhaps a pair of Intel EtherExpress Pro 100+
> NICs, and giving this another go with FreeBSD 4.0-STABLE.
I would consider 4.0, sev
:
: Do you have any thoughts on this subject? Is 3.2-RELEASE old and
:non-optimized enough that it really could stand replacing?
3.2 is certainly old. The question is whether or not the performance
issue that caught you under 3.2 is fixed under 4.0. Not knowing what
was caus
At 9:34 AM -0700 2000/4/27, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> I can't imagine why MFS would perform better... it shouldn't, every
> block is stored in system memory *TWICE* (once in the VM cache, and
> once in the mfs process's address space). If you have enough system
> memory to crea
: I use a mfs for storing the Diablo history file on our news
:peering server. Yes, I know the front part of the file is mmap()'ed
:and effectively kept completely in memory anyway, but I've seen
:periods of time when we received over 160,000 articles in a single
:hour (an average of ab
At 11:05 PM -0700 2000/4/26, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> You should be able to create a large virtual VN device. man
> vnconfig for more information - you have the choice of making it
> file-backed, swap-backed, or swap-backed with the swap pre-reserved.
> file-backed VN devices
:Hi,
:
: Today, we tried to create a 5Gig mfs. It turns out this is
:not such a good idea. It turns out that support is basically
:limited to an int. Extracts from some of the appropriate files
:show some of the problems...
More then just a few MFS uses an mmap()'d segment, so you
c
Hi,
Today, we tried to create a 5Gig mfs. It turns out this is
not such a good idea. It turns out that support is basically
limited to an int. Extracts from some of the appropriate files
show some of the problems...
newfs.c:
int fssize; /* file system size */
12 matches
Mail list logo
