ZFS committed to the FreeBSD base.
uspoerlein at gmail.com
Fri Apr 13 18:55:08 UTC 2007
Rick C. Petty wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 01:51:59PM -0500, Craig Boston wrote:
> > For something this low level my opinion is it's better to stay with
> > compile time options. After all, in the above example, cmpxchg8 is a
> > single machine instruction. How much overhead does it add to retrieve a
> > variable from memory and check it, then jump to the correct place?
> > Enough that it outweighs the benefit of using that instruction in the
> > first place?
> The problem is that ZFS would be compiled (by default) to work for many
> platforms, and thus a majority of systems wouldn't get the nice
Disclaimer: I have no clue what cmpxchg8 actually does, but ...
We are talking about optimizing a filesystem by speeding up the
necessary CPU computations. Now, whenever the CPU waits for I/O (which
the ZFS threads will do plenty of times) it has literally thousands of
cycles to burn.
I don't see how this could possibly make ZFS any faster if it does not
avoid I/O operations entirely.
"The trouble with the dictionary is you have to know how the word is
spelled before you can look it up to see how it is spelled."
-- Will Cuppy
More information about the freebsd-current