Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:51:48 +0200 From: fandino <fandino@ng.fadesa.es> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3b7and poor ata performance Message-ID: <41763534.2060505@ng.fadesa.es> In-Reply-To: <94275.1098221474@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <94275.1098221474@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello Poul, nice to know you. Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>>>Why is a SCSI raid-10 system slower than a plain IDE disk? Something is >>>>wrong here. > > > It has been proven that apples and oranges can indeed be compared, > (for instance spectroscopically, see ISBN 0-7167-3094-4 page 93), :-) > A sequential speed test like the one done here is pointless for > 99.999% of all disks being used in the world. I begun this thread because disk performance in two FreeBSD machines was very low, whilst other operating systems using the same machines were very superior(x2) to FreeBSD. I did several tests with bonnie++ and they confirm this low throughput. A lot of people said "turn off async, softupdates, etc", but nothing brings FBSD performace to a normal level :-( It was just a curiosity test sequential reads using raw devices (just to discard the overhead of filesystem proccesing). It was my down-up test methodology, if sequential read access with raw disks is bad then sequential read acces with filesystems can be seriously affected. > Is your application really writing and reading data only sequentially > to raw disks ? not, they read very large files using the filesystem. > Please do a real and realistic test instead. One which includes > seek times, rotational delay and read/write mixes. I did, please read my posts. If you think I forget something I will be pleased to do some tests for you. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-October/040568.html http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-October/040740.html > Or at least realize that the quantity you are measuring is very > special case that not many people care about in practice and is in > no way indicative of a general concept like "poor ata performance". perphars a more appropiate subject will be "poor ata performance with sequential read/writes" :-? > There are tools in the ports collection for diskbenchmarking, please > use them rather than come up with some half-assed home-brew stuff. yes, I run dd, bonnie++, bonnie and reports are very clear, there is a problem with performance and the ata system (I think). Regards.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41763534.2060505>