Dump Utility cache efficiency analysis

[Danny Braniss]

> Hello
> 
> This is regarding the dump utility cache efficiency analysis post made on
> February '07 by Peter Jeremy [
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2007-February/019666.html]
> and if this project is still open. I would be interested to begin exploring
> FreeBSD (and contributing) by starting this project.
> 
> I do have some basic understanding of the problem at hand - to determine if
> a unified cache would appeal as a more efficient/elegant solution compared
> to the per-process-cache in the Dump utility implementation. I admit I am
> new to this list and FreeBSD so I wouldn't be able to determine what the
> current implementation is, until I get started.
> 
> I would first like to understand the opinions of anyone who has looked at
> this problem or think this would be a worthwhile project to start off with.
> 
> I would also appreciate if I could get simple tips and pointers of setting
> up my machine for the project. I understand this would be on the lines of:
> 
> 1. Installing a stable FreeBSD build
> 2. Check out a version of the Build suitable for the project
> 3. Pointers to begin studying the current implementation in the code-tree
> structure (would I expect it to lie in the fs/ directory?). I tried to find
> it in the FreeBSD cross reference (http://fxr.watson.org/)
> 4. Read some important sections of the developer handbook (some suggestions
> would be great)
> 
> Lastly- does this project require the know-how's of device drivers? If so, I
> would have to work harder.
> 
short answer:
	you don't need driver knowledge, but fs is a must.
long answer:
	In the days long gone, the cpu/disk where slower than the tape,
which could 'stream', and unless you could provide data fast enough, the tape
would stop, rewind some, then pick up speed, and write.
	Nowadays, tapes are slower, but some/most of us dump to file, or
pipe to restore (dump -f - ... | restore rf -), so that the tape speed is
irrelevant. On the other hand, computers have much more memory, so buffering
can be done by the OS.
	What I'm trying to say, and not wanting to take out any air from
from the sails, is that dump should be re-valuated, and maybe OpenBSD/KIS
is the best.

	danny



> Thanks a lot!
> 
> - nirmal
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>