From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Wed,  4 Mar 2009 23:16:33 -0500
From: "William K. Josephson" <jkw@eecs.harvard.edu>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-ID: <20090305041633.GA45971@mero.morphisms.net>
References: <20090305035504.GA45687@mero.morphisms.net>
	<9564059c62184de78c3b50f1341858db@quanstro.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9564059c62184de78c3b50f1341858db@quanstro.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Subject: Re: [9fans] threads vs forks
Topicbox-Message-UUID: b37ef96a-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 11:00:25PM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 10:32:55PM -0500, J.R. Mauro wrote:
> > > What types of things degrade their performance? I'm interested in
> > > seeing other data than the handful of benchmarks I've seen. I imagine
> > > writes would be the culprit since you have to erase a whole block
> > > first?
> >
> > Being full.  Small random writes, too, although much more so for
> > run-of-the-mill SSDs than for FusionIO.
>
> [citation needed]

Not really.  The only question mark is the FusionIO device
and for now you'll just have to take it from me :-)  Hopefully
there will be a paper sooner rather than later.