Re: Slow Filesystem I/O
From: Bill Todd (billtodd_at_metrocast.net)
Date: 04/24/05
- Next message: Bill Todd: "Re: Slow Filesystem I/O"
- Previous message: Alan Greig: "HP Athlon 64 laptop for $1000 - oh if only it ran VMS"
- In reply to: Alan Greig: "Re: Slow Filesystem I/O"
- Next in thread: Alan Greig: "Re: Slow Filesystem I/O"
- Reply: Alan Greig: "Re: Slow Filesystem I/O"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:33:08 -0400
Alan Greig wrote:
> Bill Todd wrote:
>
>
>>Any operating system at all serious about its future would have fixed
>
>
>>such default behavior a decade or more ago: looking like an utter
>
> slug
>
>>when compared with the default behavior on Windows or Unix,
>
> especially
>
>>while providing no stronger guarantees that the data has actually
>
> made
>
>>it onto the disk as compensation, is absurd.
>
>
> Recall Bill that VMS did fix this problem a decade ago with
> Spiralog/TNFS/Files-64.
And then fairly quickly rescinded support for that fix. That's simply
more evidence that about a decade ago serious support for VMS's future
started grinding to a halt, though inertia allowed considerable
additional significant development to come to fruition before that
process completed with the diversion of most remaining effort into the
Itanic port.
Sure it had problems but rather than fix or
> re-implement the programmers were sacked during downsizing and the
> product dropped. With that file system in place a simple write of an
> 80MB file could indeed complete almost instantly. I ran a full-feed
> news-server (ANU News) with Spiralog field-test for some time and met
> some of the developers.
My (admittedly vague) recollection is that (for obvious reasons)
Spiralog did not change *default* file system behavior in any
application-visible way, but rather made a considerably richer set of
options available (some of which may, of course, have been options to
change the default behavior manually). So I don't understand how
Spiralog itself could have affected RMS's default performance nearly
that much (e.g., when RMS specified that its internal buffer should be
written to disk, it had the right to assume that it indeed had been
written when the QIO completed, so Spiralog would have had to respect
that right by performing a synchronous disk write: yes, it could have
combined that with other data needing to make it to disk, but the bottom
line would remain that it would take at last one disk revolution to
destage each 8 KB RMS buffer, which is nowhere nearly equivalent to
making the disk's entire sequential bandwidth available to that single
application).
Now, it certainly would have been possible to change *RMS* (probably
only in relatively minor ways) such that it could tell QIO "Hey, just
take this small buffer off my hands so I can reuse it, and if I ever
really care when it actually gets to disk (e.g., the application
requests a FLUSH or the file is closed) I'll give you a nudge". If such
changes were implemented, then indeed it would have solved much of even
the default-behavior performance problem.
- bill
- Next message: Bill Todd: "Re: Slow Filesystem I/O"
- Previous message: Alan Greig: "HP Athlon 64 laptop for $1000 - oh if only it ran VMS"
- In reply to: Alan Greig: "Re: Slow Filesystem I/O"
- Next in thread: Alan Greig: "Re: Slow Filesystem I/O"
- Reply: Alan Greig: "Re: Slow Filesystem I/O"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|