Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:30:08 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 8.0 Performance (at Phoronix) Message-ID: <hf3cpo$6i4$1@ger.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <4B153498.8050601@FreeBSD.org> References: <1259583785.00188655.1259572802@10.7.7.3> <1259659388.00189017.1259647802@10.7.7.3> <4B153498.8050601@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexander Motin wrote: > Alexander Motin wrote: >> Threaded I/O activity could get much benefit from NCQ-aware disk driver. >> It is not included in default FreeBSD kernel, but it would be nice to >> compare. > > To check possible NCQ effect, I've built test setup with new 320GB > 7200RPM Seagate drive connected to Intel ICH10R controller. I've run > IMHO more reasonable benchmark/raidtest tool from ports on whole device, > to execute pregenerated random mix of 10000 random-sized (512B - 128KB) > read/write requests using default ata(4) driver and new ahci(4): > Number of READ requests: 5029. > Number of WRITE requests: 4971. > Number of bytes to transmit: 655986688. > Number of processes: 32. > > The results: > ata(4) - no NCQ: > Bytes per second: 12455402 > Requests per second: 189 > ahci(4) - with NCQ: > Bytes per second: 19889778 > Requests per second: 303 > > Results are repeatable up to the 4-th digit. Average time per request is > 5.29ms and 3.3ms respectively, that seems realistic for this drive. If you have a drive to play with, could you also check UFS vs ZFS on both ATA & AHCI? To try and see if the IO scheduling of ZFS plays nicely. For benchmarks I suggest blogbench and bonnie++ (in ports) and if you want to bother, randomio, http://arctic.org/~dean/randomio .
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?hf3cpo$6i4$1>