From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 22 13:29:51 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 BD28016A4CE for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:29:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp.des.no (flood.des.no [217.116.83.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24B7B43D45 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:29:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: by smtp.des.no (Pony Express, from userid 666) id 18FCA5311; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:29:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dwp.des.no (des.no [80.203.228.37]) by smtp.des.no (Pony Express) with ESMTP id 96B5B5310; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:29:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: by dwp.des.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id 66EF6B861; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:29:42 +0200 (CEST) To: fandino@ng.fadesa.es References: <94275.1098221474@critter.freebsd.dk> <41763534.2060505@ng.fadesa.es> From: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:29:42 +0200 In-Reply-To: <41763534.2060505@ng.fadesa.es> (fandino@ng.fadesa.es's message of "Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:51:48 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on flood.des.no X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.64 cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3b7and poor ata performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:29:51 -0000 fandino writes: > yes, I run dd, bonnie++, bonnie and reports are very clear, there is > a problem with performance and the ata system (I think). There is no problem with the ATA subsystem in general. I have no trouble getting 40 MBps with raw sequential reads on my laptop and 50 MBps on my desktop (both running -CURRENT with INVARIANTS but no WITNESS, and both with fairly old disks). Unfortunately, my AMD64 box is not online right now or I could give you the numbers for its brand- new SATA150 drive under 5.3 BETA7. There may be problems with your particular hardware and / or software configuration, but you're not likely to get those solved by being so confrontational. As regards block sizes: there *is* a definite increase in performance - almost a full order of magnitude - going from 512 B to 64 kB. For larger block sizes, you will get a smaller improvement simply from amortizing the syscall overhead over larger transfers. I have no idea how Emmanuel Strobl managed to test performance with block sizes of 128 B and 256 B since the transfer size for an ATA disk needs to be a multiple of 512 B. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no