Kenneth Culver wrote: > Quoting fandino <fandino_at_ng.fadesa.es>: > >> 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? >> >> > If you're still using the GENERIC kernel, that could explain it, and > judging > from other emails I've seen from you, you're still using the GENERIC > kernel. Right, and you should also use -U (softupdates) on you newfs line. -- -SørenReceived on Mon Oct 18 2004 - 12:43:21 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:18 UTC