Subject: Re: NetBSD 1.6 Release Schedule
To: None <port-i386@netbsd.org>
From: Charles Shannon Hendrix <shannon@widomaker.com>
List: port-i386
Date: 07/01/2002 00:16:13
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 02:43:46PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> >That's too bad. It would be nice if it could break order after a
> >process had passed some I/O limit. It limits the effect of a common
> >tuning method whereby you move applications to separate drives.
>
> Agreed. I've upgraded several of my machines to 1.6beta2 and beta3,
> and I'm seeing the same symptoms that Wojciech has mentioned.
I am hoping that in the long run UBC is going to be a big win though.
My old hardware works fine, and I'm way too lazy to replace it. I know
what will happen if I get faster hardware: new project... :)
> Unix-like systems have long had this problem -- the disk-scheduler is
> too far removed from any process's context.
Well, that's largely been on purpose. It can result in pretty good
overall throughput. I don't think it would be too hard to link processes
more closely. The first shot might be rough, like first-run SMP kernels,
but maybe a research fork could explore some ideas.
This is the sort of thing which would seem ideal for company sponsored
research.
--
UNIX/Perl/C/Pizza__________________________________shannon@widomaker.com