From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] kfs performance 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 02 Mar 2004 18:15:57 +0400."
             <200403021415.i22EFvs9073684@adat.davidashen.net> 
From: "Russ Cox" <rsc@swtch.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <51463.1078280392.1@t40.swtch.com>
Message-Id: <E1AyLzG-000DO5-LD@t40.swtch.com>
Date: Tue,  2 Mar 2004 21:19:52 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0e31faf4-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> It takes three times more time to write a file under Plan9 
> than under FreeBSD on the same computer (bunzip2 cdinstall.iso.bz2
> , 200 Mb unzipped).
> 
> Is there something wrong with my setup, or is it normal?

this is pretty normal.  kfs isn't batching disk writes or paying
attention to disk layout, so you get what you get.  i bet that
freebsd is a bit more clever with its disk.  i'm surprised it's only
a factor of three.   fossil isn't any better in this regard, although
it does buffer more.

disk file system speed is one area where i do wish plan 9 was
zippier (as opposed to context switches betwen threads).

russ