Re: FreeBSD 5.3b7and poor ata performance

This might be a bit away from the main interest of the thread:
anyone has done any test in 5.2.1 ?

With respect,
     Claudiu Dragalina-Paraipan.


On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:38:18 +0800, Dao-hui Chen <dhchen75_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I have silimilar result, but this time the OS is 4.10-stable and 6-current
> 4.10: Intel ICH4 with ST380021A, Seagate's 7200rpm hard disk
> 6: Intel ICH2 with IC35L040AVER07, IBM's 7200rpm hard disk
> 
> Both with custom kernel, soft-update and mount as async.
> On 6-current I turn all debugging-related options off and using
> SCHE_4BSD as default scheduler
> 
> In sequential input (block), the 4.10 box got a incredible results
> as 590747K/sec (!!!), while 6-current got only 24906K/sec
> In sequential output(block), the difference is also noticable with
> 37432 vs 22180.
> 
> There may be some misses in sequential input, but in sequential output
> the difference between 4.10 and 6 is noticable, about 15M/Sec.
> Considering the
> hardware difference, the difference in performance is still too large.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:42:55 +0200, Søren Schmidt <sos_at_deepcore.dk> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > --
> >
> > -Søren
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"
> >
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"
> 


-- 
Claudiu Dragalina-Paraipan
e-mail: dr.clau_at_gmail.com