Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 17:01:21 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: psd@worldaccess.nl (Paul Dekkers) Cc: shawn@luke.cpl.net, jdn@qiv.com, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD is slower than Linux !? Message-ID: <199708152201.RAA00904@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970814222053.136C-100000@gromit.nev.ml.org> from Paul Dekkers at "Aug 14, 97 10:23:19 pm"
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Shawn Ramsey wrote: > > >Do be fair, I think you should mount the FreeBSd disks asyncronously. By > >default, it is set to Synchronously. Linux, at least it used to be this > >way, is mounted asynch. Disk access is HUGELY increases under FreeBSD if > >it is set to asynch. (mount -o async /dev/filesystem) > > Joking? Look at my dd-test: > Linux fBSD fBSD with async (linux with sync) > dd-test 2.61 4.95 4.78 2m06 (!!) > also with the other tests fBSD is still slower and the sync is faster, > even faster than last time without async, so FreeBSD really wrote > everything already. > and I'm sure the / was mounted with async! (checked with mount) > i'm using an i486 with 40mb's of memory so that should be enough for > FreeBSD to do something :-) > > -= Paul =- > > P.S. ext2 with sync mounted is terribly slow! Comparing that with fbsd, fbsd > is faster in writing really to disk. > With the -async option, FreeBSD actually writes long sequential writes without blocking. Those writes are done that way so that the disk-cache doesn't get backlogged with lots of dirty pages (buffers.) I have been pondering a really async option, but that would not be the default async. Our async option is really an async metadata option. Johnhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708152201.RAA00904>