Re: More into /etc/rc.d/jail

Hi Glenn,

> >This was recently discussed in some thread.  The problem with this
> >approach is that file backed md(4) devices are too slow to make it
> >standard.  This is why this won't go into FreeBSD, IMHO.
> 
> I experienced the same performance problem when comparing md(4) virtual 
> disks in 5.x to vn(4) virtual disks in 4.x.
> 
> The results were that md(4) file backed disks in 5.x was only about 1/3 the 
> speed of vn(4) file backed disks in 4.x.
> 
> Ultimately it turned out that newfs in 5.x creates ufs1 file systems which 
> are quite different than the same file system created with newfs in 
> 4.x.  The most notable difference was that in 5.x each cylinder group 
> essentially only had one cylinder in it.
> 
> When a file system was created in 4.x and then mounted in 5.x using md(4), 
> the performance was almost identical to the performance of vn(4) in 4.x.
> 
> I posted a message about it on the freebsd-fs list, but never received any 
> feedback.

I just tested what you are saying.  I first created a file backed vn(4)
device on my RELENG_4, disklabel(8)'ed and newfs(8)'ed it :
%%%
    yoda:root# dd if=/dev/zero of=newfs4x bs=1m count=50
    yoda:root# vnconfig -c vn0 newfs4x 
    yoda:root# disklabel -r -w vn0 auto
    yoda:root# newfs /dev/vn0c
    yoda:root# vnconfig -u vn0
%%%

I copied it to my CURRENT box, and then I created a file backed md(4)
device, bsdlabel(8)'ed and newfs(8)'ed it (note that labeling is not
required since 5.x, but I have done it for the sake of consistency) :
%%%
    jarjarbinks:space# dd if=/dev/zero of=newfs7x bs=1m count=50
    jarjarbinks:space# mdconfig -at vnode -f newfs7x
    jarjarbinks:space# bsdlabel -r -w md1 auto
    jarjarbinks:space# newfs -O 1 /dev/md1c
    jarjarbinks:space# mdconfig -du 1
%%%

And now the benchmark :
%%%
    jarjarbinks:space# mdconfig -at vnode -f newfs4x -u 4
    jarjarbinks:space# mdconfig -at vnode -f newfs7x -u 7
    jarjarbinks:space# mount /dev/md4 /mnt/newfs4x/
    jarjarbinks:space# mount /dev/md7 /mnt/newfs7x/

    # File backed filesystem created on RELENG_4 :
    jarjarbinks:space# cd /mnt/newfs4x/
    jarjarbinks:newfs4x# for i in `jot 10 ` ; do dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=1m count=45 2>&1 | sed -n '$p' ; done
    47185920 bytes transferred in 3.149436 secs (14982340 bytes/sec)
    47185920 bytes transferred in 3.226415 secs (14624877 bytes/sec)
    47185920 bytes transferred in 3.095972 secs (15241069 bytes/sec)
    47185920 bytes transferred in 3.192095 secs (14782116 bytes/sec)
    47185920 bytes transferred in 3.122508 secs (15111545 bytes/sec)
    47185920 bytes transferred in 3.020874 secs (15619956 bytes/sec)
    47185920 bytes transferred in 3.197009 secs (14759396 bytes/sec)
    47185920 bytes transferred in 3.382755 secs (13948962 bytes/sec)
    47185920 bytes transferred in 3.373716 secs (13986334 bytes/sec)
    47185920 bytes transferred in 3.320148 secs (14211993 bytes/sec)

    # File backed filesystem created on CURRENT :
    jarjarbinks:newfs4x# cd /mnt/newfs7x/
    jarjarbinks:newfs7x# for i in `jot 10 ` ; do dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=1m count=45 2>&1 | sed -n '$p' ; done
    47185920 bytes transferred in 3.329189 secs (14173399 bytes/sec)
    47185920 bytes transferred in 3.469024 secs (13602074 bytes/sec)
    47185920 bytes transferred in 3.662984 secs (12881825 bytes/sec)
    47185920 bytes transferred in 3.558615 secs (13259630 bytes/sec)
    47185920 bytes transferred in 3.241910 secs (14554975 bytes/sec)
    47185920 bytes transferred in 3.339987 secs (14127577 bytes/sec)
    47185920 bytes transferred in 3.498271 secs (13488355 bytes/sec)
    47185920 bytes transferred in 3.194855 secs (14769346 bytes/sec)
    47185920 bytes transferred in 3.746663 secs (12594120 bytes/sec)
    47185920 bytes transferred in 3.358272 secs (14050654 bytes/sec)
%%%

As you can see, there is a small performance difference between
the the one created by RELENG_4's newfs(8) and CURRENT's one.

I've ran this test 100 times on each and made some statistics on the
results :
%%%
    x newfs4x.result
    + newfs7x.result
    [...]
    N           Min           Max        Median           Avg        Stddev
    x 100      12935312      16175549      14715640      14645011     685871.34
    + 100      11957991      16434651      14063540      14166142     907669.84
    Difference at 95.0% confidence
        -478869 +/- 222983
        -3.26985% +/- 1.52258%
        (Student's t, pooled s = 804451)
%%%

I've also compared RELENG_4's UFS1 and CURRENT's UFS2 :
%%%
    x newfs4x.result
    + newfs7x.result.ufs2
    [...]
        N           Min           Max        Median           Avg        Stddev
    x 100      12935312      16175549      14715640      14645011     685871.34
    + 100      11368526      16089835      13619242      13727881      851634.8
    Difference at 95.0% confidence
        -917130 +/- 214322
        -6.2624% +/- 1.46345%
        (Student's t, pooled s = 773208)
%%%

Regards,
-- 
Jeremie Le Hen
< jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >