Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!mcdchg!chinet!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!vsi1!wyse!mips!mash
From: mash@mips.COM (John Mashey)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: System V file systems
Message-ID: <7328@winchester.mips.COM>
Date: 30 Oct 88 03:26:40 GMT
References: <6413@daver.UUCP> <8332@alice.UUCP> <1988Oct27.173247.2789@utzoo.uucp> <26599@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <8338@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US>
Reply-To: mash@winchester.UUCP (John Mashey)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 18

In article <8338@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum) writes:
.....
>I have never seen a realistic benchmark [ multi-process, multi-file, random
>access ] validate the claims BSD FFS puts forward - except to the extent that
>having the larger block size dictates.  And soon USG Unix will have 2K blocks
>so expect that advantage to diminish.

I don't have the benchmark either.  I do note that when we brought up
V.3 on our systems, we started with a vanilla port, intending to put
the FFS in later.  We did (8K blocks). Overall performance, responsiveness, etc,
in a multi-user environment went way up.  On 5-10mips machines,
the vanilla 1K block SYS V file system was tremendously disk-bound.
(Again, I don't have the numbers handy, but I remember what it felt like.)
-- 
-john mashey	DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc>
UUCP: 	{ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash  OR  mash@mips.com
DDD:  	408-991-0253 or 408-720-1700, x253
USPS: 	MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086