login
Login
/
Register
Search
Search this site:
Forums
News
Blogs
Features
Site
Home
»
Mailing list archives
»
openbsd-misc
»
2010
»
February
»
24
Re: softdeps enabled = poor "concurrent" access?
view
thread
Previous message: [
thread
] [
date
] [
author
]
Next message: [
thread
] [
date
] [
author
]
[view in full thread]
From: Noah McNallie
Subject:
Re: softdeps enabled = poor "concurrent" access?
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 8:19 pm
On 02/23/2010 08:47 PM, Bryan wrote:
quoted text
> where's your dmesg? have you tried a -current snapshot? > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 18:20, Noah McNallie<n0ah@n0ah.org> wrote: >> Hey guys. Noah here. I'd like to use openbsd on an older machine i have. >> I've had it on there before and never tested something that i've been >> testing on various operating systems lately. That's how well they do while >> under disk io load, concurrently. >> >> An example would be to tar -zxvf a large tarball and in another terminal, >> try to run a simple command. such as 'uname' or 'ls' or what have you. To >> test responsiveness. It may not be a very good test but it's a everyday >> usage test. >> >> Well, i've found on openbsd without sofdeps enabled it will do this just >> fine. But when enabling softdeps it will not. The 'uname' or 'ls' will take >> quite a while to complete. >> >> The machine is a 300MHz 2MB L2 sparc64 SUN Ultra 30. softdeps is almost >> required as it speeds up something like the extraction of a tarball >> exponentially. I'm guessing somewhere near 25x. It's very slow on this >> machine without sofdeps. >> >> Any help leading to a sollution is more than apreciated! >> >> Noah McNallie >> n0ah > >
if by -current snapshot you mean openbsd 4.6 then yes, that's what i'm using. Noah McNallie n0ah
Previous message: [
thread
] [
date
] [
author
]
Next message: [
thread
] [
date
] [
author
]
Messages in current thread:
softdeps enabled = poor "concurrent" access?
, Noah McNallie
, (Tue Feb 23, 5:20 pm)
Re: softdeps enabled = poor "concurrent" access?
, Bryan
, (Tue Feb 23, 6:47 pm)
Re: softdeps enabled = poor "concurrent" access?
, Noah McNallie
, (Tue Feb 23, 7:25 pm)
Re: softdeps enabled = poor "concurrent" access?
, Noah McNallie
, (Tue Feb 23, 8:19 pm)
Re: softdeps enabled = poor "concurrent" access?
, Rafael Ferreira Neves
, (Tue Feb 23, 8:31 pm)
Re: softdeps enabled = poor "concurrent" access?
, James Hartley
, (Tue Feb 23, 8:39 pm)
Re: softdeps enabled = poor "concurrent" access?
, Tomas Bodzar
, (Wed Feb 24, 2:10 am)
Re: softdeps enabled = poor "concurrent" access?
, Jan Stary
, (Wed Feb 24, 2:52 am)
Re: softdeps enabled = poor "concurrent" access?
, Bret S. Lambert
, (Wed Feb 24, 2:59 am)
Re: softdeps enabled = poor "concurrent" access?
, Tobias Ulmer
, (Wed Feb 24, 3:10 am)
Re: softdeps enabled = poor "concurrent" access?
, Michal
, (Wed Feb 24, 3:46 am)
Re: softdeps enabled = poor "concurrent" access?
, Marco Peereboom
, (Wed Feb 24, 5:39 am)
Re: softdeps enabled = poor "concurrent" access?
, Artur Grabowski
, (Wed Feb 24, 5:41 am)
Re: softdeps enabled = poor "concurrent" access?
, Noah McNallie
, (Wed Feb 24, 11:02 am)
Re: softdeps enabled = poor "concurrent" access?
, Noah McNallie
, (Wed Feb 24, 11:03 am)
Re: softdeps enabled = poor "concurrent" access?
, Tony Abernethy
, (Wed Feb 24, 11:18 am)
Re: softdeps enabled = poor "concurrent" access?
, J Sisson
, (Wed Feb 24, 11:24 am)
Re: softdeps enabled = poor "concurrent" access?
, Noah McNallie
, (Wed Feb 24, 11:36 am)
Navigation
Create content
Mailing list archives
Recent posts
Popular discussions
linux-kernel
:
Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Re: [PATCH 1/4] hvc_console: do not set low_latency
Russell King
Re: ARM defconfig files
Carsten Otte
Re: [patch] ext2: xip check fix
Jordan Crouse
Re: 2.6.25-mm1
James Morris
Re: [AppArmor 01/41] Pass struct vfsmount to the inode_create LSM hook
git
:
Felipe Contreras
Re: [kernel.org users] [RFD] On deprecating "git-foo" for builtins
Johannes Schindelin
[PATCH] fetch: refuse to fetch into the current branch in a non-bare repository
Johannes Schindelin
Re: [PATCH] Fix install-doc-quick target
Peter Oberndorfer
Subject: [PATCH] fix stg edit command
Nicolas Pitre
Re: About git and the use of SHA-1
linux-netdev
:
Ursula Braun
[patch 2/8] [PATCH] af_iucv: sync sk shutdown flag if iucv path is quiesced
Andi Kleen
Re: RFC: Nagle latency tuning
Gary Thomas
Re: Marvell 88E609x switch?
David Miller
Re: [RFC 0/5] generic rx recycling
Chuck Lever
Re: [RFC] ipv6: Change %pI6 format to output compacted addresses?
dragonflybsd-user
:
Andreas Hauser
Re: Transset.
Tomas
usb printer Brother HL-2030 and DragonFly
Matthew Dillon
Re: DragonFlyBSD not in compliance with RFC 1122
Nikolai Lifanov
pkgsrc issues
Jonas
Re: New to DragonFly...
dragonflybsd-submit
:
Ilya Dryomov
git: HAMMER - Add live_dedup_cache_size sysctl
Matthew Dillon
git: MBUF - Account for failed allocations so netstat -m reports properly.
Simon Schubert
git: make.conf(5): mention STATIC_LOCALES
Matthias Schmidt
cvs commit: src/sys/net bpf.c bpf.h bpfdesc.h
Simon Schubert
git: Revert "Increase the default TCP maximum segment size from 512 to 1460."
Colocation donated by:
Syndicate