From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 18 14:43:21 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B0C616A4CE for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:43:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from spider.deepcore.dk (cpe.atm2-0-53484.0x50a6c9a6.abnxx9.customer.tele.dk [80.166.201.166]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CF2743D2F for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:43:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sos@DeepCore.dk) Received: from [194.192.25.143] (laptop.deepcore.dk [194.192.25.143]) by spider.deepcore.dk (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9IEhFnk021358; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:43:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from sos@DeepCore.dk) Message-ID: <4173D66F.6010200@DeepCore.dk> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:42:55 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F8ren_Schmidt?= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.2 (X11/20040802) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kenneth Culver References: <20041015190638.C5A0E5D04@ptavv.es.net> <41715E7F.7060509@ng.fadesa.es> <20041018100045.f8koww0skcco0woo@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz> In-Reply-To: <20041018100045.f8koww0skcco0woo@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-mail-scanned: by DeepCore Virus & Spam killer v1.4 cc: fandino@ng.fadesa.es cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3b7and poor ata performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:43:21 -0000 Kenneth Culver wrote: > Quoting fandino : >=20 >> 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 fil= e >>> 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 (alwa= ys >> using the same hardware). FreeBSD is by far, the worst throughput of a= ll >> (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=20 > judging > from other emails I've seen from you, you're still using the GENERIC=20 > kernel. Right, and you should also use -U (softupdates) on you newfs line. --=20 -S=F8ren