From: Ted Bullock <tbullock@comlore.com>
Subject: Re: Workflow question, maybe bug or unclear usage.
To: Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de>, gameoftrees@openbsd.org, Stefan Sperling <stsp@stsp.name>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 14:02:05 -0700



On 2022-01-29 1:42 p.m., Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 01:22:43PM -0700, Ted Bullock wrote:
>> On 2022-01-29 6:17 a.m., Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> cvs does not use unveil, which makes it difficult to infer a common baseline.
>>> Could you try your 'got status' NFS test with unveil disabled?
>>
>> Alright, with unveil disabled, on nfs with an older sparc64 cpu.
>> Slightly more than twice as performant. I'm quite surprised honestly.
>>
>> $ time got status
>>     4m26.37s real     0m21.44s user     0m50.38s system
> 
> With unveil disabled, does the NFS -l mount option now make a
> significant difference?

$ time got status
    3m35.09s real     0m17.89s user     0m33.59s system

Yes, now the mount_nfs -l option has an impact.

-- 
Ted Bullock <tbullock@comlore.com>