Glenn, > That is basically what I did. The only real difference is the block size > that you used. (I was using 512 byte blocks) > > It's interesting that you got nearly identical numbers. The test that I > ran was showing about 20Mbytes/sec under 4.x and about 7MB/sec under > 5.x. The only way I could get 5.x to come close to the 4.x numbers was to > use newfs in 4.x and then mount that file system in 5.x. (I had a boot > disk with two slices, 4.x and 5.x, and two other disks in the same machine > that I used for testing.) I think I misunderstood what you said in your first mail. I thought you were saying that a file-backed filesystem created with RELENG_4's newfs(8) behaves differently than later newfs(8). It's silly, and you were in fact obviously comparing md(4) and vn(4) performances. The tests I ran both used md(4). THus they are worthless. I don't have a RELENG_4 on the same computer as my CURRENT, so I won't be able to test this. Sorry for wasting time. Regards, -- Jeremie Le Hen < jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >Received on Wed Aug 10 2005 - 18:58:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:41 UTC