--zhXaljGHf11kAtnf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 01:30:33AM -0500, Johan A. van Zanten wrote:
>=20
> Bill Stouder-Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 08:38:47AM +0100, Dieter wrote:
> > > > > Soft updates gives higher performance than journaling in most (no=
t all) cases.
> > > >=20
> > > > Can you actually demonstrate that this is the case?
> > >=20
> > > IIRC these papers do.
> > >=20
> > > http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/usenix99/mckus=
ick.html
> > > http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/usenix2000/gen=
eral/seltzer.html
> >=20
> > Do you have any recent references? Specifically NetBSD-based ones?
>=20
>   I did everything possible as a non-root user.
>=20
>  Sorry this isn't formatted better -- i wanted to answer your question,
> but don't have a lot of free time. :)
>=20
> Commands that start with "+" were run from a Bourne shell script as
> non-root.
>=20
> FFS was faster in all but one of the tests (mv).

Thank you. However we were wanting to compare soft updates with a=20
journaled ffs, not LFS.

Take care,

Bill

--zhXaljGHf11kAtnf
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFGA/xnWz+3JHUci9cRApB5AJoDvSqlfNmR/HRbJ7//V/xwBhjUewCdGZQB
1qglH9LVJEDyrwJRZ/jci7Y=
=HTXL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--zhXaljGHf11kAtnf--