From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 23 05:58:53 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F232D37B401 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 05:58:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from otter3.centtech.com (moat3.centtech.com [207.200.51.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0DC543FE0 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 05:58:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from centtech.com (electron.centtech.com [204.177.173.173]) by otter3.centtech.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h5NCwn56040304; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:58:49 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Message-ID: <3EF6F979.3020103@centtech.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:58:33 -0500 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i386; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexander Leidinger References: <741132145421.20030619172208@nojabrsk.ru> <3EF1AE85.2080505@centtech.com> <20030622191642.3f3532bd.Alexander@Leidinger.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: s_porotnikov@nojabrsk.ru cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: freebsd-performance Digest, Vol 4, Issue 9 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:58:53 -0000 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 07:37:25 -0500 > Eric Anderson wrote: > > >>Interestingly enough, I found FreeBSD 4.8 to be faster at local disk >>writes than FreeBSD 5.1. About 50% faster. > > > 5.1 isn't tuned yet to deliver high performance, so it isn't a surprise > to see a lower performance than 4.x. But 50% is much... are you sure you > did the test under the same conditions (e.g. are you sure the write > cache was off (or on) in both cases, no debugging switches activated in > the kernel/userland)? I attempted to create the same environment, but I didn't force anything to be the same. In other words, what I did was swap the boot drive out from 4.8 to 5.1 and back again, each time testing the differences in speed. Same RAIDed partitions were tested, so it was tested on ufs, with the same tests, and consistant results. I didn't turn on/off write caching on either, so if the defaults are different between them, that could be the problem.. Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Systems Administrator Centaur Technology Attitudes are contagious, is yours worth catching? ------------------------------------------------------------------