Hello Søren, Søren Schmidt wrote: >>> 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. FreeBSD 5.3b7 with default fs(+softupdates): 26615 K/sec http://195.55.55.164/tests/fbsd+softupdates.txt I was running FreeBSD-4.x for two years with this problem, waiting for FreeBSD-5 because ATAng looks very promising. Unfortunately the performance problem persist :-( and I'd like to call the attention about performance over raw devices, whilst it's a very scientific test it's very curious: # dd if=/dev/ad4 of=/dev/null bs=1024k count=1024 1024+0 records in 1024+0 records out 1073741824 bytes transferred in 31.090536 secs (34535970 bytes/sec) over 34000 K/sec, using raw devices (for sequential access obviously) not softupdates, filesystems or caches are involved, and with all this FreeBSD performace is very deficient. Tests with OpenBSD and Linux using raw devices shows a throughput of approx 60000 K/sec. The question here is why using low-level access to disks is so bad? Perphas I'm missing something but this seems very weird to me. I'd like to know wich is you opinion about this. Thank you.Received on Mon Oct 18 2004 - 14:44:33 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:18 UTC