From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 15 18:20:12 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E70D16A4CE for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:20:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mailhub.sweetdreamsracing.biz (mailhub.sweetdreamsracing.biz [66.92.171.106]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E647143D5A for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:20:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from culverk@sweetdreamsracing.biz) Received: by mailhub.sweetdreamsracing.biz (Postfix, from userid 80) id 923A161AB; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:16:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 141.156.69.109 ([141.156.69.109]) by www.sweetdreamsracing.biz (Horde) with HTTP for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:16:11 -0400 Message-ID: <20041015141611.t8cgso00co4wggoc@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:16:11 -0400 From: Kenneth Culver To: fandino@ng.fadesa.es References: <416EB6B1.6060405@ng.fadesa.es> <416F849F.8020508@solid-state-logic.com> <416F90E6.10108@ng.fadesa.es> <200410151223.33355.howells@kde.org> <416FF477.4010408@ng.fadesa.es> <20041015131432.srwo0wog000skgcs@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz> <41700BBB.50003@ng.fadesa.es> In-Reply-To: <41700BBB.50003@ng.fadesa.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 4.0-cvs cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD and poor ata performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:20:12 -0000 Quoting fandino : > Kenneth Culver wrote: >>> well, my usage pattern is write a big file and few seconds later >>> read it. So my tests >>> were valid for the use of the computer. >>> >>> But you have reason, I must provide a more formal report. I redid all test >>> with bonnie++ and results shows Linux (56848 K/sec) two times faster than >>> FreeBSD (26347 K/sec) >>> >>> Any help will be appreciated! >>> >>> >>> Linux test (slackware 8.1, kernel 2.4.18, ext2 filesystem): >> >> >> This test isn't really a fair test either. The ext2 filesystem uses >> async io, >> and doesn't do any kind of journaling to ensure data integrity in >> the event of >> a crash. FreeBSD isn't using async, it uses softupdates. Because of this >> FreeBSD SHOULD be slower... but it'll be a lot more reliable than >> linux in the >> event of a power outage for example. The ext2 filesystem is extremely >> unreliable, and will almost always lose data when there's a crash or power >> outage. > > but then why does read/write tests over raw devices performs so bad? > AFAIK on raw devices not filesystem, journaling, caches, etc are involved. > _______________________________________________ Like I said before, you might not have been testing the throughput of the disks, instead you may have been testing the throughput of /dev/zero. Ken