From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 7 14:24:59 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B0831065674 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 14:24:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pathiaki2@yahoo.com) Received: from nm15.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm15.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 320EE8FC08 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 14:24:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [98.139.91.63] by nm15.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Jan 2011 14:12:39 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.54] by tm3.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Jan 2011 14:12:39 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1054.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Jan 2011 14:12:39 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 8300.71244.bm@omp1054.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 92765 invoked by uid 60001); 7 Jan 2011 14:12:38 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1294409558; bh=y4iB3K4A3uPxfuh2okJYS8Fm75XfSbgM29nSVfO/EDY=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=G5/iaB/czBUL3pDApffZP5nQEpoyCfccvDMlXz5ZSY/vyL2izKOgbT+FHyWl45mESyKx4inZCYwbKSSvi9feMg048EiD0Hn54AOJwKPsqbcjnRhby8LsFLh1M6edgZLlo5aJi/mNey6tmk+wLyc4JYy4S2wK4K1yFN5hoe0+WIs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=r4LDRaPP3vEILrviGbqAH3UVxdVFI6D0j32TnF55TfbBE6qap+w+/73v1gWkYIRY9NLj+fxYyrqdUc4DxPL70hWK6hlIUooXP0Oib0eWmbLj0xyp5ujE6YWimLMijb9v1W6UbC3mJYWd681JDF2s/cn8gFK8+HrS7kV0/X09Q28=; Message-ID: <448737.83863.qm@web110508.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: e9v8vxYVM1kAQ25ONfBWvbgbho94HuheM0_cYir6Q6y0dQv jyqe4HaqVSJgdL32s6MDHQaTS734Mn5jbKDJlnN9q4GpkWAlCpKPTMGE2KHC VtYbq9Sbnam8_MSFJunBq.IKF4T0DCt5mOii5ZSCDx8sel0MR1BtKcljFPor YkzT631WApCDRnSEjeMVKdYtfZun7F2TllEfH8xdxE8zHrX4U2nAEagrWrzV apcybNpxirxXDMHjvIUkEw8khkqULvsdcz05DtnL9W2bAksFPvtW5.XOGeLS QhvhZq2XHiigOGEvDLWjJn.zJniZ0hnIcwY8IyMzO752CBF4UGKbjTYvJpmd k8wABaKOoBBYxhMTGqcBfl.9fSQfVGKBtSnx4MFkM32JUkW3p9Gy.iAkApgx mTZYycrdsKhQU Received: from [71.174.61.120] by web110508.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 06:12:38 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/553 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.285259 References: <4D26FBD3.20307@quip.cz> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 06:12:38 -0800 (PST) From: Paul Pathiakis To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <4D26FBD3.20307@quip.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Subject: Re: Phoronix comparision of HAMMER, UFS, ZFS, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 14:24:59 -0000 This is almost laughable. I'd like to know what parameters they were tuning. I used FreeBSD with ZFS to make a point to people using Debian on EXT3, EXT4, XFS just two years ago. They were interested in total throughput and TPS. Well, I used the SAME MACHINE and rebuilt it from scratch with the same parameters except the filesystems and the last time I changed the OS to FreeBSD with ZFS. It was on a SAS drive using JBOD. It was an HP 1xx series box. The transaction size was 4K. I believed this was going to skew things heavily in Debian's favor. The machine had a dual core intel processor, an LSI controller card and about 4 GB of RAM. The OS and the test data were on separate drives. Total data written and read was 20 GB in sequential. The results came out like this: EXT3 - ~3000 tps EXT4 - ~3800 tps XFS - ~ 1800 tps ZFS - 75000 tps This benchmark ran flatout and I made 4 runs of each and took the average of the slowest 2 of the bunch. (I do this so as not to get caught with my pants down on real world performance and for best practices as we all know that due to heat and resistance, things get slower until full operating temperature is reached. The engineers who were developing the software, gave me their benchmark to run. Their target was 15,000 tps and they were struggling. I asked to see their performance testing. They had done none! Also, they had done their entire product development with out a systems architect or Sr. Systems Administrator in the mix. They later on created a new benchmark to exonerate themselves and it performed random access reads, writes and deletes. The ratio where cut by about 1/2 on Debian and about 1/3 on ZFS. I performed little tuning on anything. I wanted to see it all straight of the box. All SMP and all 64 bit OS. Paul Pathiakis Systems Architect/Sr Admin/Geek All around nice guy. ________________________________ From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Sent: Fri, January 7, 2011 6:41:07 AM Subject: Phoronix comparision of HAMMER, UFS, ZFS, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs Another filesystem benchmark from Phoronix. This time comparing HAMMER, UFS, ZFS, EXT3, EXT4 and Btrfs on DragonFly BSD, PC-BSD and Ubuntu. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=dragonfly_hammer I think it is almost useless test if systems were crippled to UP, because of bad SMP performance of DragonFly BSD. citation: "...the SMP performance under our setup was actually much slower than with its UP kernel. As a result, we used the stock DragonFlyBSD UP kernel and when benchmarking PC-BSD and Ubuntu we disabled the SMP support there." Miroslav Lachman _______________________________________________ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"