Subject: Re: UVM/other problems for desktop users in current?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: George Michaelson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/18/2002 15:05:35
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 15:49:40 +1100 Daniel Carosone <email@example.com> wrote:
> This is mostly a CVS issue, or rather the impact of CVS's access
> For those experiencing this problem - are you running softdep?
> People have made the contrast between NetBSD and FreeBSD/Linux.
> FreeBSD is probably using softdep by default (?), Linux is effectively
> mounting async. Do the same on NetBSD, and then compare again.
Hmm. I think async comes with markedly more risks doesn't it? At least thats
how I've read the complaints about Linux FS practices vs BSD. Are you *sure*
this is a good idea?
> Other things to help further:
> - On my laptop, in order to let the disk stay spun down more of
> the time, I run filesystems noatime,nodevmtime, further reducing
> the load and impact of CVS. With the combination of all of
> these things, I really see nothing like the problems people
> describe here -- even though the disk traffic is all going
> through cgd doing crypto in interrupt context.
I'm going to try this next.
> - In current, there is work under NEW_BUFQ_STRATEGY to address
> some of the other known problems with dealing with the impact of
> nasty disk access patterns. It might be worth seeing what effect
> this has, if you're willing to experiment. I haven't needed to.
I'm going to try list last! :-)