From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 16 17:46:41 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 168E916A4CE for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 17:46:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from tierra2.ng.fadesa.es (tierra2.ng.fadesa.es [195.55.55.166]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5141843D31 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 17:46:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from fandino@ng.fadesa.es) Received: from [195.55.55.163] ([195.55.55.163]) (authenticated bits=0) by tierra2.ng.fadesa.es (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9GHkdi3018931 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:46:39 +0200 Message-ID: <41715E7F.7060509@ng.fadesa.es> Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:46:39 +0200 From: fandino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616 X-Accept-Language: gl, en, es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <20041015190638.C5A0E5D04@ptavv.es.net> In-Reply-To: <20041015190638.C5A0E5D04@ptavv.es.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: user fandino from 195.55.55.163 X-Virus-Scanned: clamd / ClamAV version 0.75.1, clamav-milter version 0.75c on tierra2 X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3b7and poor ata performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: fandino@ng.fadesa.es List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 17:46:41 -0000 Hello Kevin, Kevin Oberman wrote: >>Tests were done win bonnie++ 1.93c and the results were Linux two >>times faster than FreeBSD using the same hardware. >> >>GNU/Linux 2.4.18 with ext2: 56848 K/sec >>FreeBSD 5.3b7 with default fs: 26347 K/sec >>FreeBSD 5.3b7 ata raid0* (two disks): 26131 K/sec >>FreeBSD 5.3b7 geom stripe* (two disks): 30063 K/sec > > > Are you comparing apples with apples? I believe that Linux mounts file > systems as async by default. To compare with FreeBSD, you should use "-o > async" when you mount. Of course, this is less reliable. > > Also, make sure that disk write-cache is enabled on both or disabled on > both. write-cache was enable on all tests and disks were in UDMA5 mode. In this new round of tests I add FreeBSD witch async and OpenBSD (always using the same hardware). FreeBSD is by far, the worst throughput of all (about 50% slower than others) :-? GNU/Linux 2.4.18 with ext2: 56848 K/sec FreeBSD 5.3b7 with default fs: 26347 K/sec FreeBSD 5.3b7 with default fs(async): 26566 K/sec FreeBSD 5.3b7 ata raid0* (two disks): 26131 K/sec FreeBSD 5.3b7 geom stripe* (two disks): 30063 K/sec FreeBSD 5.3b7 geom stripe** (four disks): 31891 K/sec OpenBSD 3.5 UFS fs: 55277 K/sec * Each disk of the raid had a throughput of approx. 15000 K/sec ** Each disk of the raid had a throughput of approx. 7500 K/sec Each disk of the read split the throughput by half. How is possible that FreeBSD performs as bad? http://195.55.55.164/tests/bsd.txt (original FBSD test) http://195.55.55.164/tests/obsd.txt (openbsd test) http://195.55.55.164/tests/gstripe-4.txt (4 disks gstripe tests with async) http://195.55.55.164/tests/fbsd2.txt (FBSD test with async) http://195.55.55.164/tests/linux.txt (original GNU/Linux test) http://195.55.55.164/tests/dmesg.txt