Re: sshd responsiveness

[Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner@xxxxxxxxx>]

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@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Justin Sherrill
> <justin@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
>> Digest:
>>
>> http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/index.php?s=sched
>
> 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@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>