From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 25 22:09:58 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3566C16CBB9; Thu, 25 May 2006 21:58:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB68543D64; Thu, 25 May 2006 21:58:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C721A4EE7; Thu, 25 May 2006 14:58:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2150851370; Thu, 25 May 2006 17:58:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 17:58:10 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway To: etalk etalk Message-ID: <20060525215810.GB31540@xor.obsecurity.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3uo+9/B/ebqu+fSQ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org Subject: Re: about ufs filesystem io performance! X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 22:10:01 -0000 --3uo+9/B/ebqu+fSQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 08:12:42PM +0800, etalk etalk wrote: > 5.3 vs 6.0=20 > The test tool is Iozone3_257, and the test command is ??./iozone -A -f=20 > /mnt/tmpfile.test -g 1g -n 1m -q 8k -y 2k -R -b outfile-Af.xls ??=20 > (http://www.iozone.org/src/current/). We ran all the tests on the same PC= =20 > with 2.4 GHz Pentium CPU and 512M main memory. Figure1~Figure5 show the= =20 > results of the file system performance comparison between Bsd5.3??s UFS2= =20 > and Bsd6.0??s UFS2 when testing with different file system (local, sync,= =20 > async, softupdate, sync+softupdate).=20 >=20 > According to the figures, our conclusion is:=20 > On all kinds of file systems, the write, rewrite, read and reread=20 > performance of the two is almost same and we cant say that Bsd6.0 make a= =20 > improvement on file system IO performance.=20 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 --3uo+9/B/ebqu+fSQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEdihyWry0BWjoQKURAgn/AJ47wqzyD75T8OMhA7wWfUZ+v/sTcQCgz5Ir R+4hKHNLp36E34TvFeifrBA= =UMyL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --3uo+9/B/ebqu+fSQ--