Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 17:58:10 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: etalk etalk <yanyuejin2004@hotmail.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org Subject: Re: about ufs filesystem io performance! Message-ID: <20060525215810.GB31540@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <BAY23-F7EAC580529275F59304D5BB990@phx.gbl> References: <BAY23-F7EAC580529275F59304D5BB990@phx.gbl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 08:12:42PM +0800, etalk etalk wrote: > 5.3 vs 6.0 > The test tool is Iozone3_257, and the test command is ??./iozone -A -f > /mnt/tmpfile.test -g 1g -n 1m -q 8k -y 2k -R -b outfile-Af.xls ?? > (http://www.iozone.org/src/current/). We ran all the tests on the same PC > with 2.4 GHz Pentium CPU and 512M main memory. Figure1~Figure5 show the > results of the file system performance comparison between Bsd5.3??s UFS2 > and Bsd6.0??s UFS2 when testing with different file system (local, sync, > async, softupdate, sync+softupdate). > > According to the figures, our conclusion is: > On all kinds of file systems, the write, rewrite, read and reread > performance of the two is almost same and we cant say that Bsd6.0 make a > improvement on file system IO performance. Very unlikely, since the former is giant locked and the latter not. I saw a performance improvement of up to a factor of 7 in favour of 6.0 when I tested concurrent I/O. http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/bsdcan/Filesystem%20Performance.pdf If this is truly what you're seeing, then you're probably hitting some other bottleneck and not actually testing filesystem performance. Kris [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEdihyWry0BWjoQKURAgn/AJ47wqzyD75T8OMhA7wWfUZ+v/sTcQCgz5Ir R+4hKHNLp36E34TvFeifrBA= =UMyL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060525215810.GB31540>