On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 11:14:59PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > >Measuring disk device performance (i.e. running a benchmark against > > >the bare device) and filesystem performance (writing to a filesystem > > >on the device) are very different things. > > > > I wish people would stop trying to deny that we have serious work in front > > of us to get the VFS and disk IO figures back to where they were before. > > > > there ARE slowdowns and I have seen it both with tests on teh basic > > hardware and throug the filesystems. I don't know why this surproses > > people because we have still a lot of work to do in teh interrupt latency > > field for example, and I doubt that even PHK would say that there is no > > work left to do in geom. > > Where we are now is closing in on "feature complete". Now we need to > > profile and optimise. > > OK, but note that I didn't deny anything, I only questioned whether > the OP was observing a real problem (he didn't mention disk I/O, or in > fact any specific claim) or whether it was a coloured perception based > on the (incorrect) assumption that gcc compilation speed was measuring > a performance loss in FreeBSD. According to gcc-4.0 release notes, compilation speed for C++ was dramatically increased, up to 25% IIRC. I think 4.0 is good candidate for merging into HEAD. -KirillReceived on Mon Apr 25 2005 - 04:21:12 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:32 UTC