Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.nfs:1930 comp.arch:21398 Newsgroups: comp.protocols.nfs,comp.arch Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Incremental sync()s and using disk idle time Message-ID: <1991Mar12.202238.19586@zoo.toronto.edu> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1991 20:22:38 GMT References: <28975@cs.yale.edu> <1991Mar5.223443.21187@ns.uoregon.edu> <1991Mar6.003008.9131@bellcore.bellcore.com> <1991Mar7.115154.4820@hq.demos.su> <1991Mar8.142031.9098@bellcore.b Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article kinch@no31sun.csd.uwo.ca (Dave Kinchlea) writes: >... it would be highly advantagous (in the general case) to take all of >the filesystem information out of the kernel and give it to the I/O controller. Which filesystem? System V's? That's what you'd get, you know... That aside, the most probable result is that your big expensive main host CPU, which could undoubtedly run that code a lot faster, will spend all its time waiting for the dumb little I/O controller to run the filesystem. This is not a cost-effective use of hardware resources. [Incidentally, is there some reason why twits (or readers written by twits) keep saying "Followup-To: comp.protocols.nfs", when this topic is only marginally related to NFS and highly related to architecture? It's quite annoying to have to keep manually fixing this.] -- "But this *is* the simplified version | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology for the general public." -S. Harris | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry