On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 02:18:15PM +0200, Daniel Brewer wrote:
> Hi
> 
> When comparing our software's CPU utilization running on 151 & on 161, I noticed an inexplicably high usage on 161. After digging deeper with gprof, I found that an fsync on 161 takes significantly longer than on 151. Our software writes captured images into a ring buffer in a memory file-system, so other servers can retrieve them. Could someone explain the why fsync on 1.6.1 is so significantly slower than on 1.5.1? Is there a work-around? Or perhaps a completely different way of doing this?
> 
> The process involved after capture, is as follows:
> 
> flock(fdPostBuf, LOCK_EX)
> lseek(fdPostBuf, img_offset, SEEK_SET)
> write(fdPostBuf, img_buf, img_size)
> fsync(fdPostBuf)
> flock(fdPostBuf, LOCK_UN)

How large is img_size ?
I suspect this is a side effect of the unified buffer cache: in 1.6.x the
whole image is buffered, while with 1.5.x ony part of it is. As a consequence,
fsync() on 1.6 has much more work to do; on the other hand write() should
complete immediatly, where it would block on buffer I/O in 1.5.x

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.eu.org>
     NetBSD: 24 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--