From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 28 02:45:28 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A136E16A4CE; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 02:45:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from avscan2.sentex.ca (avscan2.sentex.ca [199.212.134.19]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA58143D41; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 02:45:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from localhost (localhost.sentex.ca [127.0.0.1]) by avscan2.sentex.ca (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0S2jTl1041775; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:45:29 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from avscan2.sentex.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (avscan2.sentex.ca [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 41635-02; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:45:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by avscan2.sentex.ca (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0S2jSe6041767; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:45:28 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from simian.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [192.168.43.27]) by lava.sentex.ca (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0S2jKE5073641; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:45:20 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.0.20050127213817.02f19220@64.7.153.2> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.0.14 Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:47:04 -0500 To: Robert Watson From: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at avscan2b cc: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.org cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 02:45:28 -0000 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