Forgot: I'm using a newfs -U -j partition on FreeBSD 9.1.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Carsten Mattner <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? >> >>
