carstenmattner at gmail.com
Sun Feb 10 10:59:38 PST 2013
Forgot: I'm using a newfs -U -j partition on FreeBSD 9.1.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Carsten Mattner
<carstenmattner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Justin Sherrill
> <justin at shiningsilence.com> wrote:
>> Well, it's two different file systems, two different operating systems, and
>> (I assume) two different machines with different disks and different network
>> links. Maybe even two different encryption setups? I don't know if the
>> FreeBSD machine is using ZFS or UFS - if it's UFS, it's not recording
>> history so there's less overall work. That can make a difference too.
>> Unfortunately this all adds up to a shoulder shrug, in terms of an answer.
>> There's been a lot of discussion about the disk scheduler and how to
>> position reading vs. writing for Hammer over the past year or two. If you
>> really want to dive into it, there's the 'dsched' man page, and the other
>> pages it links to from there. Also, there's scheduler-related links on the
> Thanks Justin.
> It's actually the same machine and I'm pretty much curious
> about interactive sessions and the process scheduler and
> real world experience users have or can relate to.
>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com>
>>> When I compared FreeBSD 9.1 geli based full disk encrypted system
>>> with a dfly (HAMMER) 3.2.2 full disk encrypted system I noticed that
>>> using an ssh session is considerably less responsive on dfly if I
>>> rsync data from another machine to the dfly machine in parallel.
>>> On FreeBSD the ssh session doesn't get unresponsive. This is
>>> subjective and not scientifically measured and I'm just curious
>>> to hear your thoughts. Is it just probably caused by default settings?
More information about the Users