what are perfomrances when you don't go thrrough the filesystem? how fast is: dd if=/dev/ad0 of=/dev/null bs=128k count=10000 ? Dao-hui Chen 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" > >Received on Mon Oct 18 2004 - 17:06:53 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:18 UTC