From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 5 17:51:31 2010 Return-Path: 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 AB07D1065676; Sat, 5 Jun 2010 17:51:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from mail.zoral.com.ua (mx0.zoral.com.ua [91.193.166.200]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 451278FC1B; Sat, 5 Jun 2010 17:51:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua (root@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua [10.1.1.148]) by mail.zoral.com.ua (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o55Hparv062661 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:51:36 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua (kostik@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o55HpNut039882; Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:51:23 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: (from kostik@localhost) by deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id o55HpNhS039881; Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:51:23 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) X-Authentication-Warning: deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua: kostik set sender to kostikbel@gmail.com using -f Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:51:23 +0300 From: Kostik Belousov To: Attilio Rao Message-ID: <20100605175123.GY83316@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <4C09932B.6040808@wooh.hu> <201006050236.17697.bruce@cran.org.uk> <4C09FC43.8070804@wooh.hu> <4C0A7F2F.3030105@elischer.org> <4C0A816A.9040403@feral.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kl6COkrTq67Sn9pw" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.2 at skuns.kiev.zoral.com.ua X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_50, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS autolearn=no version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on skuns.kiev.zoral.com.ua Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Matthew Jacob Subject: Re: sysbench / fileio - Linux vs. FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 17:51:31 -0000 --kl6COkrTq67Sn9pw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 07:41:23PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote: > 2010/6/5 Matthew Jacob > > > > All of these tests have been apples vs. oranges for years. > > > > The following seems to be true, though: > > > > a) FreeBSD sequential write performance in UFS has always been less tha= n optimal. > > > > b) Linux sequential write performance in just about any filesystem has = always been "impressive". But that "impressive" has come at some not so obv= ious costs. First of all, Linux is probably the most aggressive cluster/wri= te-behind OS I've even seen. You can suck down all available memory with wr= itebehind using dd. This means that some stats are "impressive", and others= are "painful". A desktop that becomes completely unresponsive while you're= doing this dd is one personal outcome. > > > > Also, you have to be careful what you're asking for in comparing the tw= o platforms, or any platforms for that matter. What do you want to optimize= for? Apparent responsiveness as a desktop? A specific workload (nfs, cifs)= that completes N quatloos per fortnight? >=20 > Besides anything, I'm much more concerned about the loss of > performance within FreeBSD itself. I wouldn't expect a so high > pessimization when the number of threads increases (without > considering the big performance loss with the 8k blocksize, pretty > much reproducible). I'm trying to drive, privately, the tester to > pmc/lock profiling analysis in order to start collecting some useful > datas. Are the benchmarks create threads that write to the same file ? If yes, then this behaviour is well understood. > While I think that we might pay a lot of attention to ZFS, I think we > might not leave alone FFS. Having a fast, well supported, native > filesystem might be a great thing for us. >=20 > Comparing with other operating systems, as you smartly point out, > might not be got as 'undefeatable truths' but have cons and prons that > needs to be fully understood before to make false claims. >=20 > Thanks, > Attilio >=20 >=20 > -- > Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" --kl6COkrTq67Sn9pw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkwKjpsACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4gJZwCcDri6qMQ/Lq+HbhDZo1Wu49Eg MbsAoPBpV4igzN33oT8Jhm9GK/bIbQ8Z =erbj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --kl6COkrTq67Sn9pw--