Each disk of the read split the throughput by half.Hello Kevin, Kevin Oberman wrote: >>Tests were done win bonnie++ 1.93c and the results were Linux two >>times faster than FreeBSD using the same hardware. >> >>GNU/Linux 2.4.18 with ext2: 56848 K/sec >>FreeBSD 5.3b7 with default fs: 26347 K/sec >>FreeBSD 5.3b7 ata raid0* (two disks): 26131 K/sec >>FreeBSD 5.3b7 geom stripe* (two disks): 30063 K/sec > > > Are you comparing apples with apples? I believe that Linux mounts file > systems as async by default. To compare with FreeBSD, you should use "-o > async" when you mount. Of course, this is less reliable. > > Also, make sure that disk write-cache is enabled on both or disabled on > both. write-cache was enable on all tests and disks were in UDMA5 mode. In this new round of tests I add FreeBSD witch async and OpenBSD (always using the same hardware). FreeBSD is by far, the worst throughput of all (about 50% slower than others) :-? GNU/Linux 2.4.18 with ext2: 56848 K/sec FreeBSD 5.3b7 with default fs: 26347 K/sec FreeBSD 5.3b7 with default fs(async): 26566 K/sec FreeBSD 5.3b7 ata raid0* (two disks): 26131 K/sec FreeBSD 5.3b7 geom stripe* (two disks): 30063 K/sec FreeBSD 5.3b7 geom stripe** (four disks): 31891 K/sec OpenBSD 3.5 UFS fs: 55277 K/sec * Each disk of the raid had a throughput of approx. 15000 K/sec ** Each disk of the raid had a throughput of approx. 7500 K/sec Each disk of the read split the throughput by half. How is possible that FreeBSD performs as bad? http://195.55.55.164/tests/bsd.txt (original FBSD test) http://195.55.55.164/tests/obsd.txt (openbsd test) http://195.55.55.164/tests/gstripe-4.txt (4 disks gstripe tests with async) http://195.55.55.164/tests/fbsd2.txt (FBSD test with async) http://195.55.55.164/tests/linux.txt (original GNU/Linux test) http://195.55.55.164/tests/dmesg.txtReceived on Sat Oct 16 2004 - 15:44:05 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:17 UTC