Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:47:04 -0500 From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050127213817.02f19220@64.7.153.2> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1050128010648.68140B-100000@fledge.watson.o rg> References: <dc9ba04405012717045622a60f@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1050128010648.68140B-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 08:14 PM 27/01/2005, Robert Watson wrote:
> >
> > My tests use the exact same disk layout, and hardware. However, I have
> > had consistent results on all 4 boxes that I have tested on.
I am redoing mine so that I boot from a different drive and just test on
one large RAID5 partition so that the layout is as consistent as possible
>I/O (reads, writes at fairly large multiples of the sector size -- 512k is
>a good number) and small I/O size (512 bytes is good). This will help
>identify the source along two dimmensions: are we looking at a basic
>storage I/O problem that's present even without the file system, or can we
>conclude that some of the additional extra cost is in the file system code
>or the hand off to it. Also, with the large and small I/O size, we can
>perhaps draw some conclusions about to what extent the source is a
>per-transaction overhead.
Apart from postmark and iozone (directly to disk and over nfs), are there
any particular tests you would like to see done ?
Also, anyone know of a decent benchmark to run on windows ? I want to test
samba's performance on the 2 platforms as seen from a couple of Windows
clients.
---Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.2.0.14.0.20050127213817.02f19220>