From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Feb 17 19:10:58 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from peach.ocn.ne.jp (peach.ocn.ne.jp [210.145.254.87]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E79ED37B64D for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:10:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dcs@newsguy.com) Received: from newsguy.com (p35-dn02kiryunisiki.gunma.ocn.ne.jp [211.0.245.100]) by peach.ocn.ne.jp (8.9.1a/OCN) with ESMTP id MAA19374; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:10:48 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <38ACADD6.E8566B65@newsguy.com> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:26:30 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pt-BR,ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brad Knowles Cc: Tom , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Initial performance testing w/ postmark & softupdates... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Brad Knowles wrote: > > I've run tmpfs tests with postmark on Ultra 2 and Ultra 5 systems > with faster CPUs and newer versions of the OS, and they didn't run > anywhere *NEAR* that fast (I've got an Ultra 5 I'm testing right > now). Heck, one person told me he had an older laptop running Linux > with ReiserFS and he was getting better throughput going to disk than > Sun did with tmpfs! Err... Is it fast or is it slow? You are claiming both up there... :-) > I also notice that softupdates on a slow disk beat out > Linux/ext2fs+async on a single CPU system that was otherwise > similarly configured, except for the DPT SmartRAID V controller that > the Linux server had to it's advantage, and the 5-way RAID-5 volume > that it was writing to. DPT is known to be slow, and write performance on RAID-5 is lower than on single-disk. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org "If you consider our help impolite, you should see the manager." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message