Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!rpi!leah!bingvaxu!ub!canisius!pavlov
From: pavlov@canisius.UUCP (Greg Pavlov)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: Re: Maxtor disks & DEC5000
Keywords: Help
Message-ID: <2933@canisius.UUCP>
Date: 14 Oct 90 04:58:44 GMT
References: <768@inesc.UUCP> <1990Oct11.211023.2207@decuac.dec.com>
Organization: Canisius College, Buffalo N.Y. 14208
Lines: 24

In article <1990Oct11.211023.2207@decuac.dec.com>, mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum) writes:
> 	Depending on the way you anticipate using your system, you might
> want to increase the size of your buffer cache, and change the write
> scheduling policy to delay scheduling dirty buffers for write.....
> 
   What is the downside of this ?  Am I taking a bigger chance on ending up
   with a corrupted database, for instance ?   What are potential performance
   downsides ?

> I haven't tried tuning the rotational delay of Maxtors - you might want to
> play with that some, too.

    I have played with the tunefs parameters many times  - particularly rotat-
    ional delay.  I have noticed that I do not see any difference (well, no 
    more than 2-5% )  regardless of what I set them to and on what type/brand of
    disk (RA70's, RA90's, RDnn's, Fuji M2333k, various CDC and HP).

    - this has been the case ever  since DEC introduced it's "own" filesystem - 
    back at ULTRIX 2 (?).  Am I missing something ?  (yes, I dismount the rele-
    vant partititon...).


  greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny
  pavlov@stewart.fstrf.org