On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 11:54:58PM -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote: > > > > Hm. But I'd think that even with modern drives a smaller number of bigger > > I/Os is preferable over lots of very small I/Os. > > Not necessarily. It depends upon overhead costs per-i/o. With larger I/Os, you > do pay in interference costs (you can't transfer data for request N because > the 256Kbytes of request M is still in the pipe). OK. 256K might be a bit on the high side. -- Wilko Bulte Arnhem, The Netherlands http://www.tcja.nl The FreeBSD Project: http://www.freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
- Re: FreeBSD random I/O performance issues Matthew Dillon
- Re: FreeBSD random I/O performance issues Sheldon Hearn
- Re: FreeBSD random I/O performance issues Matthew Dillon
- Re: FreeBSD random I/O performance issues Chris Wasser
- Re: patches for test / review Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: patches for test / review Greg Lehey
- Re: patches for test / review Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: patches for test / review Wilko Bulte
- Re: patches for test / review Matthew Jacob
- Re: patches for test / review Matthew Dillon
- Re: patches for test / review Wilko Bulte
- Re: patches for test / review Matthew Dillon
- Re: patches for test / review Wilko Bulte
- Re: patches for test / review Rodney W. Grimes
- Re: patches for test / review Wilko Bulte
- Re: patches for test / review Rodney W. Grimes
- Re: patches for test / review Greg Lehey
- Re: patches for test / review Matthew Dillon
- Re: patches for test / review Alfred Perlstein
- Buffer cache renovation Garrett Wollman