From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 29 17:07:22 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1444F16A477 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:07:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 88EDA13C4E8 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:07:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2007 17:07:20 -0000 Received: from nat-wh-1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (EHLO mobileKamikaze.norad) [129.13.72.169] by mail.gmx.net (mp042) with SMTP; 29 Nov 2007 18:07:20 +0100 X-Authenticated: #5465401 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18L/oQvR/oLGmcxU0iD+N16SSog3ofzh2Mb9WwAJj jmuLB6RUaL5EYu Message-ID: <474EF1B8.1030606@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:07:04 +0100 From: Dominic Fandrey User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071117) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Norberto Meijome References: <474BD99C.7070002@gmx.de> <20071128225517.30a8b26a@meijome.net> In-Reply-To: <20071128225517.30a8b26a@meijome.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: msdosfs performance unbearable X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:07:22 -0000 Norberto Meijome wrote: > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:47:24 +0100 > Dominic Fandrey wrote: > >> ufs: >> $ time -h tar -xf php_manual_en.tar.gz >> 3.31s real 0.43s user 0.51s sys > > I've seem something similar , in the past, on 6.2, when writing to my mobile phone's mini-SD card. > > what does gstat show? (in particular, is any device being used 100% ?, can u relate the slowness when it hits 100% ? do other disks other than your FAT disk become saturated too? ) This is the gstat output on UFS for reference: dT: 1.006s w: 1.000s L(q) ops/s r/s kBps ms/r w/s kBps ms/w %busy Name 151 2106 47 1416 12.3 2059 11425 21.4 60.8| ad0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| acd0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| ad0s1 151 2092 33 525 12.1 2059 11425 21.8 53.5| ad0s2 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| ad0s3 0 14 14 891 12.8 0 0 0.0 17.8| ad0s4 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| ad0s2a 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| ad0s2b 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| ad0s2c 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| ad0s2d 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| ad0s2e 151 2092 33 525 12.1 2059 11425 22.5 54.3| ad0s2f 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| cd0 And this is the same operation on fat32: dT: 1.017s w: 1.000s L(q) ops/s r/s kBps ms/r w/s kBps ms/w %busy Name 1 11 0 0 0.0 11 43 0.1 0.2| ad0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| acd0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| ad0s1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| ad0s2 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| ad0s3 1 11 0 0 0.0 11 43 0.2 0.2| ad0s4 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| ad0s2a 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| ad0s2b 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| ad0s2c 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| ad0s2d 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| ad0s2e 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| ad0s2f 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| cd0 As you can see, there is a /slight/ difference in throughput. Both slices are on the same HD, so it's not a controller thing.