On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Justin Sherrill <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, it's two different file systems, two different operating systems, and > (I assume) two different machines with different disks and different network > links. Maybe even two different encryption setups? I don't know if the > FreeBSD machine is using ZFS or UFS - if it's UFS, it's not recording > history so there's less overall work. That can make a difference too. > Unfortunately this all adds up to a shoulder shrug, in terms of an answer. > > There's been a lot of discussion about the disk scheduler and how to > position reading vs. writing for Hammer over the past year or two. If you > really want to dive into it, there's the 'dsched' man page, and the other > pages it links to from there. Also, there's scheduler-related links on the > Digest: > > http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/index.php?s=sched
Thanks Justin. It's actually the same machine and I'm pretty much curious about interactive sessions and the process scheduler and real world experience users have or can relate to. > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Carsten Mattner <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> When I compared FreeBSD 9.1 geli based full disk encrypted system >> with a dfly (HAMMER) 3.2.2 full disk encrypted system I noticed that >> using an ssh session is considerably less responsive on dfly if I >> rsync data from another machine to the dfly machine in parallel. >> On FreeBSD the ssh session doesn't get unresponsive. This is >> subjective and not scientifically measured and I'm just curious >> to hear your thoughts. Is it just probably caused by default settings? > >
