Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:22:20 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Phoronix Benchmarks: Waht's wrong with FreeBSD 8.0? Message-ID: <hf0kel$12r$1@ger.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <20091130140233.GC51377@intserv.int1.b.intern> References: <4B13869D.1080907@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <0D3A9408-84A8-4C74-A318-F580B41FC1A6@exscape.org> <hf0h0p$lm4$1@ger.gmane.org> <20091130084704.2893cc85.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <hf0igl$pm0$1@ger.gmane.org> <20091130140233.GC51377@intserv.int1.b.intern>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Holger Kipp wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 02:49:17PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: >> On the other hand, random IO is negatively influenced by readahead :) > > Parallel Random I/O gives better results on Raid 5 than a single sequential > read :-) I also found FreeBSD UFS with Softupdates handling directories with > many small files much better than Linux and ReiserFS (same hardware) - at least > a simple ls returned much quicker on FreeBSD (factor 5 to 10). Yes, until ext4 I was always surprised how bad Linux ext2/3 handled large metadata operations (file deletions and creations). UFS+SU definitely has places where it shines. > With FreeBSD we have a system that works ok out of the box, but for real-world > usage needs some tuning to be optimised for the specific task. Of course. But I think the issue at hand is that there really is more work to do to catch up on average IO performance.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?hf0kel$12r$1>