Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!romp!rancor!bob
From: bob@rancor.UUCP (Bob Willcox)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Esix verses the rest of 386-unix
Message-ID: <294@rancor.UUCP>
Date: 12 Mar 91 13:48:25 GMT
References: <293@rancor.UUCP> <1991Mar10.211104.9790@cimcor.mn.org>
Organization: Bob's Place, Austin TX
Lines: 26

In article <1991Mar10.211104.9790@cimcor.mn.org> mike@cimcor.mn.org (Michael Grenier) writes:
>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:
  (deleted) stuff about performance of ESIX vs. ISC filesytems
>
>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.

I have set FFSBUFFERS on my system to 256 (total of 2MB) which did help
overall system performance, though sequential read performance was
unchanged (as you would expect).

>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. 

Since I only use FFS, I set NBUF low (100, probably could have gone
lower though) since I don't think they are being used.  (Does anyone
know if the 1KB buffers are ever used if you don't have any S51K 
filesystems?)

-- 
Bob Willcox             ...!{rutgers|ames}!cs.utexas.edu!romp!rancor!bob
Phone: 512 258-4224