parallelization and the storage manager
rra at stanford.edu
Tue Mar 26 19:54:07 UTC 2002
Ben Rosengart <br at panix.com> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 11:45:24AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> That sounds a lot like you've got SEQUENTIAL set in cycbuff.conf rather
>> than INTERLEAVE.
> The pattern I'm describing above is what I see during a "makehistory"
> run, not during normal use.
> In any case, I don't have mode set in cycbuff.conf at all.
Ah! Right. Sorry, lost the thread of discussion. Yes, that's what I'd
expect with makehistory. I wonder if you'd actually get increased
performance if makehistory iterated through the cycbuffs rather than going
all the way through one and then all the way through the rest, though....
But makehistory is going to be I/O bound no matter what you do to it.
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
More information about the inn-workers