Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-14 Thread Ian Lepore
On Thu, 2015-05-14 at 07:42 +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: In message 20150514072155.gt37...@funkthat.com, John-Mark Gurney writes: Since you apprently missed my original reply, I said that we shouldn't abuse BUFSIZ for this work, and that it should be changed in mdXhl.c... Say

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-14 Thread Alfred Perlstein
On 5/14/15 2:23 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote: On May 14, 2015, at 1:06, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote: In message 20150514075316.gy37...@funkthat.com, John-Mark Gurney writes: Poul-Henning Kamp wrote this message on Thu, May 14, 2015 at 07:42 +: In message

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-14 Thread Slawa Olhovchenkov
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 08:53:05AM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote: At least I'm inclined to ponder it. Apparently nobody else is. People running servers with more GB of ram than grains of sand on the beach won't care about things like 64k buffers used by /bin/sh to read a line of text, and all the

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-14 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message 5554b8d6.1010...@mu.org, Alfred Perlstein writes: Shouldn't most of these be using st.st_blksize ? We had a long discussion about that back when GEOM was young and the conclusionis that st_blksize doesn't tell you anything useful and generally does the wrong thing, in

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-14 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message 72720ea2-c251-40b9-9ec0-702c07d5e...@gmail.com, Garrett Cooper writes: Until performance has been characterized on 32-bit vs 64-bit architectures, blanket changing a value doesn't make sense. First time I saw benchmarks which showed improved performance from a larger

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-14 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message 1431615185.1221.57.ca...@freebsd.org, Ian Lepore writes: I think we've got differing interpretations of what BUFSIZ is for. IMO, the one correct use of BUFSIZ outside of libc is if you are going to call setbuf() the buffer you pass must be BUFSIZ bytes long. Over the years,

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-14 Thread John-Mark Gurney
Ian Lepore wrote this message on Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:47 -0600: On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 11:13 -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote: Adrian Chadd wrote this message on Wed, May 13, 2015 at 08:34 -0700: The reason I ask about why is it faster? is because for embedded-y things with low RAM we may

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-14 Thread John-Mark Gurney
David Chisnall wrote this message on Wed, May 13, 2015 at 09:27 +0100: On 13 May 2015, at 09:03, John-Mark Gurney j...@funkthat.com wrote: Poul-Henning Kamp wrote this message on Tue, May 12, 2015 at 06:31 +: In message 20150512032307.gp37...@funkthat.com, John-Mark Gurney

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-14 Thread John-Mark Gurney
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote this message on Thu, May 14, 2015 at 07:42 +: In message 20150514072155.gt37...@funkthat.com, John-Mark Gurney writes: Since you apprently missed my original reply, I said that we shouldn't abuse BUFSIZ for this work, and that it should be changed in

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-14 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message 20150514075316.gy37...@funkthat.com, John-Mark Gurney writes: Poul-Henning Kamp wrote this message on Thu, May 14, 2015 at 07:42 +: In message 20150514072155.gt37...@funkthat.com, John-Mark Gurney writes: Since you apprently missed my original reply, I said

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-14 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message 20150514072155.gt37...@funkthat.com, John-Mark Gurney writes: Since you apprently missed my original reply, I said that we shouldn't abuse BUFSIZ for this work, and that it should be changed in mdXhl.c... Say what ? BUFSIZ is used entirely appropriately in MDXFileChunk():

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-14 Thread Garrett Cooper
On May 14, 2015, at 1:06, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote: In message 20150514075316.gy37...@funkthat.com, John-Mark Gurney writes: Poul-Henning Kamp wrote this message on Thu, May 14, 2015 at 07:42 +: In message 20150514072155.gt37...@funkthat.com,

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-14 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message 1431542835.1221.30.ca...@freebsd.org, Ian Lepore writes: On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 11:13 -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote: As I've already pointed out, BUFSIZ appears in the base code over 2000 times. Where is the analysis of the impact an 8x change is going to have on all those

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-14 Thread Garrett Cooper
On May 14, 2015, at 1:01, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote: In message 1431542835.1221.30.ca...@freebsd.org, Ian Lepore writes: On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 11:13 -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote: As I've already pointed out, BUFSIZ appears in the base code over 2000 times.

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-13 Thread Hans Petter Selasky
On 05/13/15 10:27, David Chisnall wrote: On 13 May 2015, at 09:03, John-Mark Gurney j...@funkthat.com wrote: Poul-Henning Kamp wrote this message on Tue, May 12, 2015 at 06:31 +: In message 20150512032307.gp37...@funkthat.com, John-Mark Gurney writes: Also, you'd probably see

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-13 Thread David Chisnall
On 13 May 2015, at 09:03, John-Mark Gurney j...@funkthat.com wrote: Poul-Henning Kamp wrote this message on Tue, May 12, 2015 at 06:31 +: In message 20150512032307.gp37...@funkthat.com, John-Mark Gurney writes: Also, you'd probably see even better performance by increasing the

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-13 Thread Ian Lepore
On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 11:13 -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote: Adrian Chadd wrote this message on Wed, May 13, 2015 at 08:34 -0700: The reason I ask about why is it faster? is because for embedded-y things with low RAM we may not want that to happen due to memory constraints. However, we may

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-13 Thread Ian Lepore
On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 10:35 +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: On 05/13/15 10:27, David Chisnall wrote: On 13 May 2015, at 09:03, John-Mark Gurney j...@funkthat.com wrote: Poul-Henning Kamp wrote this message on Tue, May 12, 2015 at 06:31 +: In message

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-13 Thread Adrian Chadd
[snip] The reason I ask about why is it faster? is because for embedded-y things with low RAM we may not want that to happen due to memory constraints. However, we may actually want to do some form of autotuning on some platforms. So, if it's underlying block size, maybe BUFSIZ isn't the thing

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-13 Thread John-Mark Gurney
Hans Petter Selasky wrote this message on Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:35 +0200: On 05/13/15 10:27, David Chisnall wrote: On 13 May 2015, at 09:03, John-Mark Gurney j...@funkthat.com wrote: Poul-Henning Kamp wrote this message on Tue, May 12, 2015 at 06:31 +: In message

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-13 Thread John-Mark Gurney
Adrian Chadd wrote this message on Wed, May 13, 2015 at 08:34 -0700: The reason I ask about why is it faster? is because for embedded-y things with low RAM we may not want that to happen due to memory constraints. However, we may actually want to do some form of autotuning on some platforms.

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-13 Thread John-Mark Gurney
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote this message on Tue, May 12, 2015 at 06:31 +: In message 20150512032307.gp37...@funkthat.com, John-Mark Gurney writes: Also, you'd probably see even better performance by increasing the size to 64k, [...] easy: 8K on 32bit 64k on 64bit

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-12 Thread Steven Hartland
4k block size on the underlying device? On 12/05/2015 00:14, Adrian Chadd wrote: So I'm curious - why's it faster? -adrian ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-12 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message 20150512032307.gp37...@funkthat.com, John-Mark Gurney writes: Also, you'd probably see even better performance by increasing the size to 64k, [...] easy: 8K on 32bit 64k on 64bit -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-12 Thread Slawa Olhovchenkov
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 06:31:33AM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: Also, you'd probably see even better performance by increasing the size to 64k, [...] easy: 8K on 32bit 64k on 64bit Need benchmarking. May be 16K is local maximum (L1 cache-efficient).

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-11 Thread Adrian Chadd
So I'm curious - why's it faster? -adrian ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

2015-05-11 Thread John-Mark Gurney
Baptiste Daroussin wrote this message on Tue, May 12, 2015 at 01:06 +0200: I would like to change the default value of BUFSIZ to 8192. After testing various applications that uses BUFSIZ like changing it in libmd I can often see performance improvements: For example with md5(1): Current