From owner-freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 28 00:43:40 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B266816A40F for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:43:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jahnke@sonatabio.com) Received: from smtp.wizwire.com (smtp.wizwire.com [209.218.100.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F8A943D45 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:43:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jahnke@sonatabio.com) Received: from pinot.fmjassoc.com (209.218.101.53.bvi2.wizwire.com [209.218.101.53]) by smtp.wizwire.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k8S0gBxZ002791 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:42:11 -0700 From: Frank Jahnke To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:40:49 -0700 Message-Id: <1159404049.5199.31.camel@pinot.fmjassoc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-WizWire-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-WizWire-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: jahnke@sonatabio.com Subject: Terrible hme throughput X-BeenThere: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Sparc List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:43:40 -0000 > fj> There's one or two factors of two left to be found. Maybe it > fj> is the Sparc disadvantage for these sorts of calculations > > no, I don't think there are any more factors of two to find. > > 300MHz Pentium, Linux with gcc: 1.5MByte/s > 440MHz UltraSPARC II, Solaris with Sun C compiler: 2.3MByte/s > 500MHz UltraSPARC II, FreeBSD with gcc: 1.0MByte/s > > try a slow PeeCee and see if you get similar results. I think it's > about right: divide performance in half as penalty for trying to use > gcc on anything but i386. I had no idea that there was so much overhead with scp. I tried scp to localhost on my main workstation (dual Athlons, 15K SCSIs, FreeBSD) and got about 7MB/s. That is a hit of about a factor of 10 for using scp from the native disk rate. I will indeed try it on a slow PC soon: I am bring up a dual Pentium III server in a week so so. > > My friend who makes big ftp servers with dm_crypt encrypted disks > reports results roughly in the same ballpark: 40MByte/s throughput > IDE-RAID<->GigEthernet with encryption, 90MByte/s without, on modern > 2 - 3GHz PeeCees. In that case it's just decryption rather than > ssh+sshd running on the same CPU, so divide that throughput in half, > and you are in the same MB per MHz ballpark as the other results. I > think it is probably working properly. I think you are right. Getting about 1MB/s on a 300MHz UltraSPARC II with gcc seems pretty good, actually. I figured I would get about half the disk rate, so about 7MB/s, give or take. Clearly that will not happen. Sorry that I can't keep the thread going, but I don't subscribe to the list, and I've not been copied on the messages. Frank