Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:38:48 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: =?X-UNKNOWN?Q?Arne_W=F6rner?= <arne_woerner@yahoo.com> Cc: delphij@delphij.net Subject: Re: ufs+softupdates / consistency Message-ID: <20050128040944.G58526@delplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20050127040418.26913.qmail@web41205.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050127040418.26913.qmail@web41205.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Arne W=F6rner wrote: > --- Xin LI <delphij@frontfree.net> wrote: > > =E5=9C=A8 2005-01-26=E4=B8=89=E7=9A=84 17:42 -0800=EF=BC=8CArne WXrner= =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > > > Can somebody explain me, why write speed is so much slower > > > than read speed (even with hard disc write cache)? > > > > This is common case caused by physical constraints I guess :-) There should be little difference for most disks. Maybe you don't actually have the write cache enabled. Some firmware is rumoured mishandle the wc flag. > > > I tried an UFS1 file system mounted async for another test. > > > And the write speed was still about 5 Mbyte/sec. > > > > Well, I haven't benchmarked it by myself, however, the author of > > SoftUpdates claims that the benchmark should be 95% or so as you > > async mount a UFS file system. For me, it used to be about 1.5 times slower for the benchmark of writing a copy of /usr/src, but it is now 3 times slower for this, and it is even slightly slower than soft updates without async. > > BTW: I think 5MB/s of write > > speed is somewhat too slow for an IDE device, you may want to > > check the cable, etc. > > > Hmm. I tried a "dd if=3D/dev/zero of=3Da bs=3D64k count=3D1000 ; sync" > with KNOPPIX and the same slice/cable and ext3fs (mkfs with > defaults) and it was about 4 times faster than FreeBSD R5.3. A count of 1000 is far too small for this benchmark. FreeBSD will start writing data after accumulating at most 128K (64K?), but Linux (at least old versions) may cache everything. The "sync" part of the above command doesn't actually sync the data, at least under FreeBSD where sync just starts syncing of the data. The speed of a correct version of this benchmark doesn't depend much on either asyncness or soft-updateness. Asyncness in FreeBSD mainly affects metadata, but the above writes mainly data. > Furthermore the read speed is about 25Mbyte/sec, so that the cable > seems to be ok. I get 24MB/sec without soft updates or async, 25MB/sec without soft updates but with async, to separate and almost full file systems on an old disk than can only do 36MB max. FreeBSD normally does well on this benchmark. 24MB/sec is very good considering that the file systems are old and full (and thus fragmented). The performance for many small files can be much worse (10% of the disk bandwidth is too common). This is where non-sync metadata updates can help a lot. > Funnily my other hard disc (SAMSUNG SP1604N), which uses the same > cable, is much faster: > write > (bs=3D64k count=3D1000 if=3D/dev/zero): > appr. 48Mbyte/sec > read > (bs=3D64k count=3D3975 if=3D<another file>): > appr. 38Mbyte/sec (???????????) > I do not understand this different behaviour... *sniff* This is normal behaviour. It sure looks like the other disk doesn't handle writes very well. Write caching shouldn't affect this much. FreeBSD should write blocks with size mostly 64K or 128K no matter what the dd block size is, and it is up to the disk to handle such sizes well. Use iostat to see block sizes related to those seen by the disk. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050128040944.G58526>