From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <bcad6afcd37a3dc9f5ec58a336592223@plan9.ucalgary.ca>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] fossil speed
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:36:29 -0700
From: andrey mirtchovski <mirtchov@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
In-Reply-To: <a4a7e15887de2ee9b8b6a0e022ca83b2@vitanuova.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 36586f62-eace-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> has anyone else found fossil to be very slow?  even when it's not
> using venti at all (e.g.  extracting a large tar archive).
> 

"almost" identical machines using ide disks (2.0 vs 2.6ghz cpu's):

on plan9:

	plan9% time tar cv xen | gzip > xen.tgz
	a xen/9pccpu 3189 blocks
	a xen/etc_xen_plan9 7 blocks
	a xen/kfs_root_image.gz 298211 blocks
	0.42u 6.48s 56.15r 	 tar cv xen
	plan9%

then this very same file was copied and untarred on the linux box:

	$ time tar cvf - xen | gzip > xen.tgz
	xen/
	xen/9pccpu
	xen/etc_xen_plan9
	xen/kfs_root_image.gz
	
	real    0m29.123s
	user    0m22.805s
	sys     0m2.635s
	$ 

i have both rwm and dma turned on.  the disks are IDE in both cases.
for Plan 9, fossil is mounted through a devfs mirror of two disks,
which should slow it down even more.

andrey