From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Nov 30 14:24:38 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C9E4106566B
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:24:38 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane.org)
Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B84928FC1A
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:24:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1NF79d-0002rG-6b
	for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:23:05 +0100
Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:23:05 +0100
Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:23:05 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:22:20 +0100
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <hf0kel$12r$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <4B13869D.1080907@zedat.fu-berlin.de>	<0D3A9408-84A8-4C74-A318-F580B41FC1A6@exscape.org>	<hf0h0p$lm4$1@ger.gmane.org>	<20091130084704.2893cc85.wmoran@potentialtech.com>	<hf0igl$pm0$1@ger.gmane.org>
	<20091130140233.GC51377@intserv.int1.b.intern>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090928)
In-Reply-To: <20091130140233.GC51377@intserv.int1.b.intern>
Sender: news <news@ger.gmane.org>
Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Phoronix Benchmarks: Waht's wrong with FreeBSD 8.0?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:24:38 -0000

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.