Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!timbuk!cs.umn.edu!kksys!com50!rosevax!atc!cimcor!mike
From: mike@cimcor.mn.org (Michael Grenier)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Esix verses the rest of 386-unix
Message-ID: <1991Mar10.211104.9790@cimcor.mn.org>
Date: 10 Mar 91 21:11:04 GMT
References: <293@rancor.UUCP>
Organization: Scandia Microsystems
Lines: 24

From article <293@rancor.UUCP>, by bob@rancor.UUCP (Bob Willcox):
> In article <9044@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> keithe@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) writes:
>>I concurr with Lary's note - ESIX Rev. D disk/file-system speed is greatly
>>improved over earlier versions, but this statement essentailly amounts to
>>"condemnation with faint praise."  ISC (mine is 2.0.2) is noticably faster.
> 
> Okay, I'll accept that.  However, just to appease my curiosity and to
> give me a point of reference, can you tell me what the performance of
> the ISC filesystem is?  


ESIX seems to default to a rather small amount of buffers. This
may be for those sites with little memory. If you have alot, up the
FFSBUFFERS in /etc/conf/cf.d/stune to something bigger. I think
this parameter refers to the number of 8K buffers reserved.

If you don't use FFS, set this very low since it eats your memory.

Up the value NBUF made a huge difference on this box with the
S51K systems. FFS didn't seem reliable on this RLL drive but the 
S51K stuff works great. 

   -Mike grenier
    mike@cimcor.mn.org