From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 18 15:44:29 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D96116A4CF for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:44:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.195]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAAD343D45 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:44:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dr.clau@gmail.com) Received: by mproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 79so189948rnk for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:44:28 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=KioyGjQIoat/vnhX7b72JL9/3n13qFIpxK3hqigAdxgHg8ZhD24HeDoDCkITPM5YPfoGnV8czd8hk6/oqZax2NggQ4VevvdO4eNiXJvBUMwC5TypJ4UZbPIv+DPzSa083IE3d7i/DSsdD7gAMfU6/urn5fjWmiSC4a8+VS/GRGM Received: by 10.38.77.58 with SMTP id z58mr1020529rna; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:44:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.14.53 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:44:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:44:26 +0200 From: Claudiu Dragalina-Paraipan To: Dao-hui Chen In-Reply-To: <17120aa104101808381cc59152@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable References: <20041015190638.C5A0E5D04@ptavv.es.net> <41715E7F.7060509@ng.fadesa.es> <20041018100045.f8koww0skcco0woo@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz> <4173D66F.6010200@DeepCore.dk> <17120aa104101808381cc59152@mail.gmail.com> cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3b7and poor ata performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Claudiu Dragalina-Paraipan List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:44:29 -0000 This might be a bit away from the main interest of the thread: anyone has done any test in 5.2.1 ? With respect, Claudiu Dragalina-Paraipan. On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:38:18 +0800, Dao-hui Chen wrote= : > I have silimilar result, but this time the OS is 4.10-stable and 6-curren= t > 4.10: Intel ICH4 with ST380021A, Seagate's 7200rpm hard disk > 6: Intel ICH2 with IC35L040AVER07, IBM's 7200rpm hard disk >=20 > Both with custom kernel, soft-update and mount as async. > On 6-current I turn all debugging-related options off and using > SCHE_4BSD as default scheduler >=20 > In sequential input (block), the 4.10 box got a incredible results > as 590747K/sec (!!!), while 6-current got only 24906K/sec > In sequential output(block), the difference is also noticable with > 37432 vs 22180. >=20 > 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. >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:42:55 +0200, S=F8ren Schmidt wro= te: > > Kenneth Culver wrote: > > > Quoting fandino : > > > > > >> 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 f= ile > > >>> systems as async by default. To compare with FreeBSD, you should us= e "-o > > >>> async" when you mount. Of course, this is less reliable. > > >>> > > >>> Also, make sure that disk write-cache is enabled on both or disable= d 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 (al= ways > > >> using the same hardware). FreeBSD is by far, the worst throughput of= all > > >> (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. > > > > Right, and you should also use -U (softupdates) on you newfs line. > > > > -- > > > > -S=F8ren > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.o= rg" > > > _______________________________________________ > 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= " >=20 --=20 Claudiu Dragalina-Paraipan e-mail: dr.clau@gmail.com