From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 15 17:41:17 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AEA216A4D2 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:41:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from tierra2.ng.fadesa.es (tierra2.ng.fadesa.es [195.55.55.166]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3DCE43D4C for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:41:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from fandino@ng.fadesa.es) Received: from [195.55.55.163] ([195.55.55.163]) (authenticated bits=0) by tierra2.ng.fadesa.es (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9FHfFi3013931 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:41:15 +0200 Message-ID: <41700BBB.50003@ng.fadesa.es> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:41:15 +0200 From: fandino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616 X-Accept-Language: gl, en, es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <416EB6B1.6060405@ng.fadesa.es> <416F849F.8020508@solid-state-logic.com> <416F90E6.10108@ng.fadesa.es> <200410151223.33355.howells@kde.org> <416FF477.4010408@ng.fadesa.es> <20041015131432.srwo0wog000skgcs@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz> In-Reply-To: <20041015131432.srwo0wog000skgcs@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: user fandino from 195.55.55.163 X-Virus-Scanned: clamd / ClamAV version 0.75.1, clamav-milter version 0.75c on tierra2 X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: FreeBSD and poor ata performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: fandino@ng.fadesa.es List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:41:17 -0000 Kenneth Culver wrote: >> well, my usage pattern is write a big file and few seconds later read >> it. So my tests >> were valid for the use of the computer. >> >> But you have reason, I must provide a more formal report. I redid all >> test >> with bonnie++ and results shows Linux (56848 K/sec) two times faster than >> FreeBSD (26347 K/sec) >> >> Any help will be appreciated! >> >> >> Linux test (slackware 8.1, kernel 2.4.18, ext2 filesystem): > > > This test isn't really a fair test either. The ext2 filesystem uses > async io, > and doesn't do any kind of journaling to ensure data integrity in the > event of > a crash. FreeBSD isn't using async, it uses softupdates. Because of this > FreeBSD SHOULD be slower... but it'll be a lot more reliable than linux > in the > event of a power outage for example. The ext2 filesystem is extremely > unreliable, and will almost always lose data when there's a crash or power > outage. but then why does read/write tests over raw devices performs so bad? AFAIK on raw devices not filesystem, journaling, caches, etc are involved.