From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Dec  1 15:30:50 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D719F106566C
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Tue,  1 Dec 2009 15:30:50 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from freebsd-current@m.gmane.org)
Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92F218FC21
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Tue,  1 Dec 2009 15:30:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1NFUgJ-0006Z1-75
	for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:30:23 +0100
Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:30:23 +0100
Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:30:23 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:30:08 +0100
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <hf3cpo$6i4$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <1259583785.00188655.1259572802@10.7.7.3>	<1259659388.00189017.1259647802@10.7.7.3>
	<4B153498.8050601@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090928)
In-Reply-To: <4B153498.8050601@FreeBSD.org>
Sender: news <news@ger.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD 8.0 Performance (at Phoronix)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:30:50 -0000

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 .