Xref: utzoo comp.unix.sysv386:2718 comp.unix.questions:27377 Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!jwt!john From: john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386,comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: Tuning SYSVR3 (Esix Rev D) (LONG!) Message-ID: <1990Dec4.031037.2718@jwt.UUCP> Date: 4 Dec 90 03:10:37 GMT References: <1990Dec02.001311.16727@virtech.uucp> Organization: Private System -- Orlando, FL Lines: 17 In article <1990Dec02.001311.16727@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill) writes: >Even if you set this variable to some high value, it is still possible >that at that new time period following a large disk update, the system >will slow down momentarily due to many dirty pages that still need to >be written out, so you may be in a no-win situation. Is a cached hard disk controller a win in this situation? If you flush a bunch of stuff to disk (but not so much as to overflow the controller's cache), does the system's response still feel "snappy"? What happens when you give the controller a read request while it's flushing its cache to the disk -- does the read take priority? Or must you wait till the controller finishes? The only gripe I have about 386 UNIX is that when you have two or more processes contending for the disk, the system comes to a near halt. Will a cached controller help or eliminate this problem? -- John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)