From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 25 01:44:56 2005 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 5B94716A4D1 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 01:44:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (CPE0050040655c8-CM00111ae02aac.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [69.194.102.111]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E869A43D1F for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 01:44:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C47E9514FE; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:44:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:44:53 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway To: Mike Tancsa Message-ID: <20050425014453.GA59981@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20050424175543.71041.qmail@web51805.mail.yahoo.com> <20050424151517.O68772@lexi.siliconlandmark.com> <3822.216.177.243.38.1114385370.localmail@webmail.dnswatch.com> <20050425000459.GA28667@xor.obsecurity.org> <6.2.1.2.0.20050424204611.072105a0@64.7.153.2> <20050425010242.GA44110@xor.obsecurity.org> <6.2.1.2.0.20050424210422.03d22990@64.7.153.2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050424210422.03d22990@64.7.153.2> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: FreeBSD 6 is coming too fast X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: current@freeBSD.org List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 01:44:56 -0000 --cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 09:35:20PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote: > At 09:02 PM 24/04/2005, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >> > >> I also tried a CURRENT snapshot then and there wasn't much of a=20 > >difference > >> between it and RELENG_5. > > > >disk I/O or filesystem I/O? It would be interesting to benchmark the > >latter since all the recent VFS work. >=20 > This was on hardware using the 3ware driver which is essentially the same= =20 > on RELENG_4 and RELENG_5. This driver was recently updated, BTW. > I also tested IDE performance which gave similar=20 > results (i.e. RELENG_4 and DragonFly was better), but the drivers are=20 > different so its hard to gage if thats a driver issue or not. I am not= =20 > sure if any of those tests answers your question, as I am not sure how to= =20 > answer it. I was looking for a way to measure overall throughput that=20 > samba, NFS, database and imap servers could do either on RELENG_4 or=20 > RELENG_5 as we start to migrate various servers from RELENG_4 to RELENG_5. Measuring disk device performance (i.e. running a benchmark against the bare device) and filesystem performance (writing to a filesystem on the device) are very different things. > I have a faster disk subsystem I can test against (Areca SATA RAID) that= =20 > works on RELENG_4,RELENG_5 and HEAD and could re-run the tests varying ju= st=20 > the base OS. If there is a particular test you feel best simulates disk= =20 > performance, I am happy to test. As is well-known, doing meaningful (disk) benchmarks is hard, and it's easy to draw incorrect conclusions if you don't understand exactly what it is you're measuring. I'm not an expert in that, but it's been discussed on the lists before. Kris --cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFCbEuVWry0BWjoQKURAku7AKDlSZmf4EIS+7oCztFxh2FUpAwTEgCgqOWr jQ8gHSY0iEwqjkPJYtW2bDE= =+aK+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e--