From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOw7k5jven0TcUs6HpreteRxr8vT57rNbAuubUbq2wEiqbv2+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87C61423-7C13-4516-88B5-C2ABA7D32AA9@me.com>
	<A1D8C0A6-BB79-42EB-9874-C3F4A8FCC1F6@9srv.net>
	<CAEAzY38Az=_4Min2vFfXCkNez-7Wka104QiWf=FaafmnJuAAWw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANUoZoERAwWAMxLYGiAGOihHBwPAq07XyKmiTyCg2tmgvaO44Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOw7k5jven0TcUs6HpreteRxr8vT57rNbAuubUbq2wEiqbv2+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue,  5 May 2015 17:38:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CANUoZoGXm6bf_Mi_QNJSmHN6U0yb+3CeVcK_r-UA+PFfDE_NQQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: David du Colombier <0intro@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [9fans] fossil+venti performance question
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4f007eaa-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>> I've just made some measurements when reading a file:
>>
>> Vacfs running on the same machine as Venti: 151 KB/s
>> Vacfs running on another machine: 5131 KB/s
>
>
> How many times do you time it on each machine?

Maybe ten times. The results are always the same ~5%.
Also, I restarted vacfs between each try.

It's easy to reproduce this issue with vacfs. I think
anyone running Venti on Plan 9 can observe this problem.

--
David du Colombier