[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: cvs pserver performance
From: |
Larry Jones |
Subject: |
Re: cvs pserver performance |
Date: |
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:21:58 -0500 (EST) |
Brian Behlendorf writes:
>
> In terms of speed, a soft-updates file system is much faster than a
> regular one, but not faster than memory-based.
It depends on what you're doing. If you're creating and deleting a
bunch of small files, soft-updates will probably outperform memory-based
because it can combine writes and discard writes that are later made
irrelevant (e.g., writes to a file that is later deleted). On the other
hand, if you're creating and deleting a bunch of big files, you'll
probably overflow the buffer cache and so prevent it from doing as good
a job of optimizing.
-Larry Jones
Any game without push-ups, hits, burns or noogies is a sissy game. -- Calvin
- Re: cvs pserver performance, (continued)
Re: cvs pserver performance, Larry Jones, 2001/01/10
- Re: cvs pserver performance, Russ Tremain, 2001/01/10
- Re: cvs pserver performance, Russ Tremain, 2001/01/24
- Re: cvs pserver performance, Brian Behlendorf, 2001/01/24
- Re: cvs pserver performance, Russ Tremain, 2001/01/24
- Re: cvs pserver performance, Larry Jones, 2001/01/25
- Re: cvs pserver performance, Brian Behlendorf, 2001/01/25
- Re: cvs pserver performance,
Larry Jones <=
- Re: cvs pserver performance, Russ Tremain, 2001/01/26
- Job Opening for Release Engineer at Pre-IPO Network Company, Howard Zhou, 2001/01/26
- Re: cvs pserver performance, Larry Jones, 2001/01/26
Re: cvs pserver performance, HMahaffey, 2001/01/25
Re: cvs pserver performance, HMahaffey, 2001/01/26