From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jun 24 7:39:48 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from obie.softweyr.com (unknown [204.68.178.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF4514E17 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 07:39:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from softweyr.com (homer.softweyr.com [204.68.178.39]) by obie.softweyr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA13024; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:39:33 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Message-ID: <37724324.E984AFD@softweyr.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:39:32 -0600 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Elischer , "Russell L. Carter" , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Microsoft performance (was: ...) References: <3771CBA7.4973C681@softweyr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Wes Peters wrote: > > Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > ok here are some of the problems.. > > > > Matt's changes allow dd to copy data at 2.5 times the rate it did before. > > I consider dd to be an application. The problem is due to resource > > handling in the kernel and results in large amounts of Idle CPU time. > > > > Another primary problem with the FreeBSD kernel (being addressed by Kirk) > > is that after writing a file, once the data has been queued for IO you > > cannot read the data in that file (even though it is present) until the IO > > is complete. With 64 tags, it is concievable that this could take a half > > second on a modern disk. > > > > These are problems shown up by the benchmarks but > > which can be shown to affect ordinary operations. > > > > There are other problems related to SMP and the GKL.. > > e.g.. two processes cannot access buffers at the same time, even though > > they are both present , because only one of them is allowed in the kernel > > at a time. Therefore One processor will spend a bunch of time at idle.. > > I think it's been pretty well known since the beginning that FreeBSD > SMP performance is nothing to cheer about. How does FreeBSD fare > against NT or other systems on single processor systems? Sorry to follow up on my own message, but I noted today in PCWeek their trip back to the benchmark lab includes ripping 3 CPUs and 768M RAM out of the system, to benchmark how Linux and NT perform on "lower-end" hardware. They also allowed the RedHat dudes to switch to an Adaptec SCSI controller to talk to the RAID array. How are we holding up under this "diminished" configuration? -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC http://www.softweyr.com/~softweyr wes@softweyr.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message