Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:38:18 +0800 From: Dao-hui Chen <dhchen75@gmail.com> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3b7and poor ata performance Message-ID: <17120aa104101808381cc59152@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4173D66F.6010200@DeepCore.dk> References: <20041015190638.C5A0E5D04@ptavv.es.net> <41715E7F.7060509@ng.fadesa.es> <20041018100045.f8koww0skcco0woo@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz> <4173D66F.6010200@DeepCore.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I have silimilar result, but this time the OS is 4.10-stable and 6-current 4.10: Intel ICH4 with ST380021A, Seagate's 7200rpm hard disk 6: Intel ICH2 with IC35L040AVER07, IBM's 7200rpm hard disk Both with custom kernel, soft-update and mount as async. On 6-current I turn all debugging-related options off and using=20 SCHE_4BSD as default scheduler In sequential input (block), the 4.10 box got a incredible results=20 as 590747K/sec (!!!), while 6-current got only 24906K/sec In sequential output(block), the difference is also noticable with 37432 vs 22180. There may be some misses in sequential input, but in sequential output the difference between 4.10 and 6 is noticable, about 15M/Sec. Considering the hardware difference, the difference in performance is still too large. On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:42:55 +0200, S=F8ren Schmidt <sos@deepcore.dk> wrote= : > Kenneth Culver wrote: > > Quoting fandino <fandino@ng.fadesa.es>: > > > >> Hello Kevin, > >> > >> Kevin Oberman wrote: > >> > >>>> Tests were done win bonnie++ 1.93c and the results were Linux two > >>>> times faster than FreeBSD using the same hardware. > >>>> > >>>> GNU/Linux 2.4.18 with ext2: 56848 K/sec > >>>> FreeBSD 5.3b7 with default fs: 26347 K/sec > >>>> FreeBSD 5.3b7 ata raid0* (two disks): 26131 K/sec > >>>> FreeBSD 5.3b7 geom stripe* (two disks): 30063 K/sec > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Are you comparing apples with apples? I believe that Linux mounts fil= e > >>> systems as async by default. To compare with FreeBSD, you should use = "-o > >>> async" when you mount. Of course, this is less reliable. > >>> > >>> Also, make sure that disk write-cache is enabled on both or disabled = on > >>> both. > >> > >> > >> write-cache was enable on all tests and disks were in UDMA5 mode. > >> > >> In this new round of tests I add FreeBSD witch async and OpenBSD (alwa= ys > >> using the same hardware). FreeBSD is by far, the worst throughput of a= ll > >> (about 50% slower than others) :-? > >> > >> GNU/Linux 2.4.18 with ext2: 56848 K/sec > >> FreeBSD 5.3b7 with default fs: 26347 K/sec > >> FreeBSD 5.3b7 with default fs(async): 26566 K/sec > >> FreeBSD 5.3b7 ata raid0* (two disks): 26131 K/sec > >> FreeBSD 5.3b7 geom stripe* (two disks): 30063 K/sec > >> FreeBSD 5.3b7 geom stripe** (four disks): 31891 K/sec > >> OpenBSD 3.5 UFS fs: 55277 K/sec > >> > >> * Each disk of the raid had a throughput of approx. 15000 K/sec > >> ** Each disk of the raid had a throughput of approx. 7500 K/sec > >> Each disk of the read split the throughput by half. > >> > >> How is possible that FreeBSD performs as bad? > >> > >> > > If you're still using the GENERIC kernel, that could explain it, and > > judging > > from other emails I've seen from you, you're still using the GENERIC > > kernel. >=20 > Right, and you should also use -U (softupdates) on you newfs line. >=20 > -- >=20 > -S=F8ren >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org= " >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17120aa104101808381cc59152>