From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 23 02:07:34 2003 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 6F2F937B401 for ; Fri, 23 May 2003 02:07:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sauron.fto.de (p15106025.pureserver.info [217.160.140.13]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C82F43F3F for ; Fri, 23 May 2003 02:07:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hschaefer@fto.de) Received: from localhost (localhost.fto.de [127.0.0.1]) by sauron.fto.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA48825C0F9; Fri, 23 May 2003 11:07:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sauron.fto.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sauron [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15919-02; Fri, 23 May 2003 11:07:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from giskard.foundation.hs (p5091974F.dip.t-dialin.net [80.145.151.79]) by sauron.fto.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE10125C0F7; Fri, 23 May 2003 11:07:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from daneel.foundation.hs (daneel.foundation.hs [192.168.20.2]) by giskard.foundation.hs (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA28473; Fri, 23 May 2003 11:07:28 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from hschaefer@fto.de) Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 11:07:28 +0200 (CEST) From: Heiko Schaefer X-X-Sender: heiko@daneel.foundation.hs To: Poul-Henning Kamp In-Reply-To: <798.1053625220@critter.freebsd.dk> Message-ID: <20030523110255.A78432@daneel.foundation.hs> References: <798.1053625220@critter.freebsd.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at fto.de cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gbde performance question 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: Fri, 23 May 2003 09:07:34 -0000 On Thu, 22 May 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > I just ran a real simple test on my laptop: > > critter# grep CPU: /var/run/dmesg.boot > CPU: Intel Pentium III (651.48-MHz 686-class CPU) > critter# dd if=/dev/ad0s1f bs=1m of=/dev/null count=10 > 10+0 records in > 10+0 records out > 10485760 bytes transferred in 0.501567 secs (20906000 bytes/sec) > critter# dd if=/dev/ad0s1f.bde bs=1m of=/dev/null count=10 > 10+0 records in > 10+0 records out > 10485760 bytes transferred in 1.191878 secs (8797678 bytes/sec) ...sounds consistent with my numbers, as far as i can tell. if you ever do anything like profiling or so, i'd be very curious to hear if there is any space left for optimization (i'm, thinking about factor two or higher, not about peanuts :)). somehow i am still suspecting that this can't be the most that our cpus could do. loopaes seems to beat gbde's throughput by a factor from what i hear. assuming that gbde is not computationally more complex by that factor, it would be nice to be on par :) regards, Heiko -- Free Software. Why put up with inferior code and antisocial corporations? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html