On Monday, 17 December 2012 at 16:44:11 -0500, Dieter BSD wrote:
> The newfs man page says:
>
> -a maxcontig
> Specify the maximum number of contiguous blocks that will be laid
> out before forcing a rotational delay. The default value is 16.
> See tunefs(8) for more details on how to set this
On Sunday, 29 October 2006 at 23:05:32 -0800, R. B. Riddick wrote:
> --- Greg 'groggy' Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Sufficiently large data blocks" equates to several megabytes.
>> Currently MAXPHYS, the largest transfer request that would get to
On Monday, 30 October 2006 at 7:11:29 +0200, Petri Helenius wrote:
> Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
>>
>> Single stream tests aren't very good examples for RAID-5, because it
>> performs writes in two steps: first it reads the old data, then it
>> writes t
On Sunday, 29 October 2006 at 11:20:33 -0600, Steve Peterson wrote:
> Petri -- thanks for the idea.
It would be a good idea to quote it. Following this thread is almost
impossible.
> I ran 2 dds in parallel; they took roughly twice as long in clock
> time, and had about 1/2 the throughput of the
On Saturday, 28 October 2006 at 22:19:17 +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
>
> According to my understanding vinum does not overlap requests to
> multiple disks when running in raid5 configuration
Yes, it does. I suspect that gvinum does too.
> so you're not going to achieve good numbers with just "s
On Tuesday, 27 June 2006 at 10:18:47 +0800, leo huang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I benchmarked MySQL 4.1.18 on FreeBSD 6.1 and Debian 3.1 using Super Smack
> 1.3 some days ago.
>
> ...
>
> The result surprise me. The MySQL Performance on FreeBSD6.1 is about
> 10 times of on Debian3.1??and the output of iosta
On Monday, 8 May 2006 at 21:11:09 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 08:43:28PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>> On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 02:52:07AM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>>> OK, David's patch fixes the umtx thundering herd (and seems to give a
>>> 4-6% boost). I also fixed
On Thursday, 15 December 2005 at 22:18:58 -0800, Eric Hodel wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2005, at 8:07 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
>
>> On Friday, 16 December 2005 at 11:20:12 +0800, huang leo wrote:
>>>
>>> We had evaluated MySQL performance on FreeBSD and Linux
On Thursday, 5 January 2006 at 10:49:48 +0800, Leo Huang wrote:
>> Personally I was surprised by this statement that libpthread wasn't
>> working for his test, for me it does benchmark a tad slower but I have
>> always seen libpthread as the most stable threading library.
>
> I am surprised too. B
On Friday, 16 December 2005 at 11:20:12 +0800, huang leo wrote:
>
> We had evaluated MySQL performance on FreeBSD and Linux. The result is
> attached.
Thank you!
This is some of the most plausible information I've seen in a while.
I'm forwarding it to a MySQL internal list, and I expect we'll dis
On Friday, 9 December 2005 at 8:23:26 +0800, David Xu wrote:
> Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
>
>> I've heard this claim again and again, and I intend to look at it when
>> I have time. I find it difficult to believe that this alone could
>> explain the somet
On Monday, 12 December 2005 at 12:59:32 +0800, Gea-Suan Lin wrote:
> 3*2*2*2 = 24 cases:
>
> # Compile Options: none, WITH_PROC_SCOPE_PTH=yes, WITH_LINUXTHREADS=yes
> # /etc/libmap.conf: none (libpthread), libthr
> # kern.timecounter.choice: ACPI-fast, TSC
> # kernel: ULE+PREEMPTION, ULE
>
> I put
On Friday, 2 December 2005 at 13:23:50 +1100, Michael Vince wrote:
> It would be good to actually see the Linux performance on the exact same
> hardware, all we ever see is how it is on FreeBSD.
>
> MySQL has very frequent use of queries of the system time and is
> well known in FreeBSD to be slow
13 matches
Mail list logo
