Frank Hofmann writes:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Given your question are you about to come back with a
> >> case where you are not
> >> seeing this?
> >>
> >
> > As a follow-up, I tested this on UFS and ZFS. UFS does very poorly: the
> > I/O rate drops off qui
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Jeff Davis wrote:
Given your question are you about to come back with a
case where you are not
seeing this?
As a follow-up, I tested this on UFS and ZFS. UFS does very poorly: the I/O
rate drops off quickly when you add processes while reading the same blocks
from the
>
> Given your question are you about to come back with a
> case where you are not
> seeing this?
>
As a follow-up, I tested this on UFS and ZFS. UFS does very poorly: the I/O
rate drops off quickly when you add processes while reading the same blocks
from the same file at the same time. I do
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/26/2007 11:36:18 AM:
> Jeff Davis wrote:
> >> Given your question are you about to come back with a
> >> case where you are not
> >> seeing this?
> >
> > Actually, the case where I saw the bad behavior was in Linux using
> the CFQ I/O scheduler. When reading the
Le 26 févr. 07 à 18:30, Frank Cusack a écrit :
On February 26, 2007 9:05:21 AM -0800 Jeff Davis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That got me worried about the project I'm working on, and I wanted to
understand ZFS's caching behavior better to prove to myself that the
problem wouldn't happen under Z
Jeff Davis wrote:
Given your question are you about to come back with a
case where you are not
seeing this?
Actually, the case where I saw the bad behavior was in Linux using the CFQ I/O
scheduler. When reading the same file sequentially, adding processes
drastically reduced total disk throu
On February 26, 2007 9:05:21 AM -0800 Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
That got me worried about the project I'm working on, and I wanted to
understand ZFS's caching behavior better to prove to myself that the
problem wouldn't happen under ZFS. Clearly the block will be in cache on
the secon
> Given your question are you about to come back with a
> case where you are not
> seeing this?
Actually, the case where I saw the bad behavior was in Linux using the CFQ I/O
scheduler. When reading the same file sequentially, adding processes
drastically reduced total disk throughput (single d
