From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 25 03:06:01 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 83FAC16A4CE for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 03:06:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from avscan1.sentex.ca (avscan1.sentex.ca [199.212.134.11]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E361843D4C for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 03:06:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from localhost (localhost.sentex.ca [127.0.0.1]) by avscan1.sentex.ca (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j3P35xSb096190; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 23:05:59 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from avscan1.sentex.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (avscan1.sentex.ca [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 95478-07; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 23:05:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by avscan1.sentex.ca (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j3P35xeX096183; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 23:05:59 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from simian.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [192.168.43.27]) by lava.sentex.ca (8.13.3/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j3P35rax065549; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 23:05:53 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.0.20050424214757.02e56a18@64.7.153.2> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 23:05:07 -0400 To: current@freebsd.org From: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: <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> <20050425014453.GA59981@xor.obsecurity.org> 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 avscan1b 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 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 03:06:01 -0000 At 09:44 PM 24/04/2005, Kris Kennaway wrote: >This driver was recently updated, BTW. Are you sure you are not thinking of the twa driver ? The twe changes recently were some small bug fixes as far as I can tell. > > I have a faster disk subsystem I can test against (Areca SATA RAID) that > > works on RELENG_4,RELENG_5 and HEAD and could re-run the tests varying > just > > the base OS. If there is a particular test you feel best simulates disk > > 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. I know benchmarks are fraught with all sorts of caveats. However, I want to try and understand ahead of time if moving a certain application from RELENG_4 to RELENG_5 will work and not fail under real load. Ten to 15 or even 20% performance difference is not so great as the one time hits in buying a faster processor or faster disks or more RAM are inconsequential compared to greater stability or more useful features (e.g. filesystem ACLs, NSS). However, if the performance difference is greater than 50% than I need to know that ahead of time. An honest question, in the UP world, what have you found to be faster on RELENG_5 than RELENG_4 ? ---Mike