From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 1 23:50:06 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1BCC16A4D6 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 23:50:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.205]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE64643D53 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 23:50:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linicks@gmail.com) Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 40so92727rnz for ; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:50:02 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; 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=XPPXkN7F3don/g3JNCTBMW89cOtyIVx5jja1ydkrAnBaqu/8ZiSBrhqCWJq5B9UvEolvGBU9HqF/jwP0dCfDualaB5Br0d29rXAd56cluG8PGqfIWJwIIm1DI77e/BoM0Phdp+pWO/dCGpLIKGbdN/+m0MC6JJ6W4ffgxnq29Uo= Received: by 10.38.179.61 with SMTP id b61mr41737rnf; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:50:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.38.8.20 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:50:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:50:01 -0700 From: Nick Pavlica To: Robert Watson In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050127213817.02f19220@64.7.153.2> cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org cc: Mike Tancsa Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Nick Pavlica List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 23:50:07 -0000 All, I was wondering if any progress has been made in determining the cause of the poor disk I/O performance illustrated by the testing in this thread? Now that 5.3 is labeled as the production stable version, and 4.x is labeled as legacy, improving the performance of the 5.4+ distributions is clearly important. I know that everyone is working hard to do this, and wanted to help by testing(retest, etc) the disk I/O performance on 5.4 devel/final and post the results as soon as possible. I would also like others to join me in this testing effort so that we have as much feedback as possible. My hope is that we will start bridging the large disk I/O performance gap demonstrated in the 4.11 & 5.3 testing. - When would be best time to start this testing? - What is the preferred method for keeping in sync with the current devel branch? I'm assuming cvs-up is the best method. Thanks! --Nick Pavlica On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:52:38 +0000 (GMT), Robert Watson wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Mike Tancsa wrote: > > > >I/O (reads, writes at fairly large multiples of the sector size -- 512k is > > >a good number) and small I/O size (512 bytes is good). This will help > > >identify the source along two dimmensions: are we looking at a basic > > >storage I/O problem that's present even without the file system, or can we > > >conclude that some of the additional extra cost is in the file system code > > >or the hand off to it. Also, with the large and small I/O size, we can > > >perhaps draw some conclusions about to what extent the source is a > > >per-transaction overhead. > > > > Apart from postmark and iozone (directly to disk and over nfs), are > > there any particular tests you would like to see done ? > > Just to get started, using dd to read and write at various block sizes is > probably a decent start. Take a few samples, make sure there's a decent > sample size, etc, and don't count the first couple of runs. > > Robert N M Watson > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >