Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:59:53 +0100 From: Sebastiaan van Erk <sebster@sebster.com> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 7.1 disk performance issue on ESXi 3.5 Message-ID: <4995ED59.2090708@sebster.com> In-Reply-To: <000e0cd28750065bb80462d24d55@google.com> References: <000e0cd28750065bb80462d24d55@google.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
Hi,
ivoras@gmail.com wrote:
> As for the original thread topic: I've communicated with the OP and it
> appears his method of benchmarking had an error so the problems that
> appear in his post are bogus.
It is not quite true that the "method" is bogus, there just seems to be
a huge difference between a soft updates vs non-soft-updates disk.
These are the results I get now:
dbench -D <dir> -t 60 1
on / (ufs, local):
Throughput 13.4561 MB/sec 1 procs
on /tmp (ufs, local, soft-updates):
Throughput 92.299 MB/sec 1 procs
However, whether it is caching or not, Linux gets 350 MB/s using 1
process and even 650 MB/s using 2. As I understand it, this shouldn't be
possible on the physical disks, but still, the *virtual* disk seems to
get this performance.
When I benchmark the linux vs the freebsd using Unixbench 4.1/5.1 (I
tried both) I also get ***HUGE*** differences:
System: test-fbsd.vpn1.sebster.com: FreeBSD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Tue Feb 10 2009 06:25:49 - 06:54:08
2 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 14144383.9 1212.0
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 3238.7 588.9
Execl Throughput 43.0 630.0 146.5
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 28793.2 72.7
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 33410.0 201.9
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 33536.8 57.8
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 1146784.7 921.9
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 36203.6 90.5
Process Creation 126.0 783.3 62.2
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 645.1 152.2
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 115.4 192.3
System Call Overhead 15000.0 939647.5 626.4
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 212.4
System: test-ubuntu: GNU/Linux
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Mon Feb 09 2009 15:15:06 - 15:43:20
2 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 18610575.3 1594.7
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 2990.1 543.7
Execl Throughput 43.0 1058.6 246.2
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 468973.2 1184.3
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 132022.2 797.7
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 921448.5 1588.7
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 1132933.6 910.7
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 93429.0 233.6
Process Creation 126.0 1744.3 138.4
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 2566.9 605.4
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 518.4 864.0
System Call Overhead 15000.0 1935577.0 1290.4
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 656.1
Here the disk intensive test (file copy) and context switch/process
creation test do terrible.
For all my personal servers this is not an issue for me at all. But for
a big high traffic web site I'm building, I'm afraid I'm going to have
to go for Linux. :-(
Regards,
Sebastiaan
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
[-- Attachment #2 --]
0 *H
01 0 + 0 *H
Q00lS|
6$1-~j0
*H
0b1 0 UZA1%0#U
Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd.1,0*U#Thawte Personal Freemail Issuing CA0
080630135157Z
090630135157Z0h10Uvan Erk10U*
Sebastiaan10USebastiaan van Erk1"0 *H
sebster@sebster.com0"0
*H
0
Va\bEnݚa<M8ʄ^tv>x73bohi2oqS_¶Bm^p* I x"9 pt!j ar#)n)^? 'z<).+Ѐ4ig R'UP*\Ւ ,?.;?f BܯTzM IDվCK*3Yŧ
mcaztxʐsq/ 00.0 U 0sebster@sebster.com0 U 0 0
*H
KT4W6ӽq]
tS` %f1 G:H b zJj$EjE'JV~-VbVnJZ E/`@@04!+T: c پf`$Z=1#|oG[OB RG00lS|
6$1-~j0
*H
0b1 0 UZA1%0#U
Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd.1,0*U#Thawte Personal Freemail Issuing CA0
080630135157Z
090630135157Z0h10Uvan Erk10U*
Sebastiaan10USebastiaan van Erk1"0 *H
sebster@sebster.com0"0
*H
0
Va\bEnݚa<M8ʄ^tv>x73bohi2oqS_¶Bm^p* I x"9 pt!j ar#)n)^? 'z<).+Ѐ4ig R'UP*\Ւ ,?.;?f BܯTzM IDվCK*3Yŧ
mcaztxʐsq/ 00.0 U 0sebster@sebster.com0 U 0 0
*H
KT4W6ӽq]
tS` %f1 G:H b zJj$EjE'JV~-VbVnJZ E/`@@04!+T: c پf`$Z=1#|oG[OB RG0?0
0
*H
01 0 UZA10U Western Cape10U Cape Town10U
Thawte Consulting1(0&U Certification Services Division1$0"UThawte Personal Freemail CA1+0) *H
personal-freemail@thawte.com0
030717000000Z
130716235959Z0b1 0 UZA1%0#U
Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd.1,0*U#Thawte Personal Freemail Issuing CA00
*H
0 Ħ<UsUNʙZ hup [v :aQP
0cZ,p+Z?qV˯< 6$*+w=+>@dקe*TH<a@ dr` 00U 0 0CU <0:08642http://crl.thawte.com/ThawtePersonalFreemailCA.crl0 U 0)U "0 0 10UPrivateLabel2-1380
*H
HP .
fgCL!6 -6/ P p<ab:~ t%Pb'qW%ݩ9 Oe_N4[5MwV!x!5$ F]_eO1q0m0v0b1 0 UZA1%0#U
Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd.1,0*U#Thawte Personal Freemail Issuing CAS|
6$1-~j0 + 0 *H
1 *H
0 *H
1
090213215953Z0# *H
1 " L#ԥ A!0_ *H
1R0P0 `He0
*H
0*H
0
*H
@0+0
*H
(0 +71x0v0b1 0 UZA1%0#U
Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd.1,0*U#Thawte Personal Freemail Issuing CAS|
6$1-~j0 *H
1xv0b1 0 UZA1%0#U
Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd.1,0*U#Thawte Personal Freemail Issuing CAS|
6$1-~j0
*H
kzaU8.ZD,oOǰHt.5J~g]茺TѪ"6֖8Lh'g=rR:⏝ŵ:{@ YIĎlPAv4I\:ěp2i T8APߪrp м`)MR`N+ /CդFl 핌Jt{:\8݂e@ ٍEV *l['u@[U=9FV5
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4995ED59.2090708>