Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 10:53:10 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Siju George <sgeorge.ml2@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Anatomy of Perfomance tests Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206291046510.43578@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <CAKdykDsWhygQz21R=wX8ou70Wd6GnV5SZ%2BNA8AFSDOY69-zikQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKdykDsWhygQz21R=wX8ou70Wd6GnV5SZ%2BNA8AFSDOY69-zikQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Most probably all filesystems were used with defaults. MAYBE softupdates, but not even sure for this. Compare this to linux which is async-like. Comparing with UFS+async would be more fair. Still - FreeBSD default MAXPHYS in param.h is far too low. i change it to 2048*1024 (default is 128*1024) and improvement on handling large files is huge. I run that setting everywhere. No problems. I already talked about it on forum but was ignored. As for scientific processing it should not depend much from OS at all, but for sure it depends on crappy compiler that Juniper wanted...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1206291046510.43578>