From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Nov 11 17:52:32 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4248616A417
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:52:32 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from randyhyde@earthlink.net)
Received: from elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net
	(elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.69])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AEDF13C4BF
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:52:31 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from randyhyde@earthlink.net)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net;
	b=ekTsA8qyoaE50aLCC04hE41bByJjkUIemD2x695UAIl9iyhLCCYTOFhzR86HFPjK;
	h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [66.215.252.78] (helo=pentiv)
	by elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1IrGyt-0001WY-QW
	for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:52:24 -0500
Message-ID: <002701c8248b$9c2b8110$6302a8c0@pentiv>
From: "Randall Hyde" <randyhyde@earthlink.net>
To: <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
References: <000701c82253$b3a8c030$6302a8c0@pentiv>
	<20071108225238.GB22005@dan.emsphone.com>
	<4734061D.9000606@freebsd.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 09:52:21 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1896
X-ELNK-Trace: eba5e0c9192a36dcd6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da94071230d9d80a435df3af18fbfa1f579e2350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 66.215.252.78
Subject: Re: Some FreeBSD performance Issues
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:52:32 -0000

Hi All,

Well, I've done some sleuthing and discovered some issues.

First, the "dd" command produced approximately the same results everyone
else was getting. So I rewrote a version of my test code in C using the
stdlib "read" call and it had really great performance. Not understanding
why C's code was so much faster, I dug into the source code and discovered
that open/read/write/etc. use *buffered* I/O (which explains why "dd"
performs so well).

At this point I'm not sure why FreeBSD's API call is so slow (btw, it's not
the system call that's responsible, if I make several additional API calls
on each read, e.g., doing lseeks, this has only a marginal impact on
performance). But it's pretty clear that if I expect reasonable performance
in my own library I'm going to have to do the same thing that glib does and
switch over to buffered I/O.  Pain in the butt, but there's nothing else to
do at this point.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde