From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 9 10:38:00 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 921171065670 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:38:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from geo.liaskos@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f224.google.com (mail-fx0-f224.google.com [209.85.220.224]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 211938FC15 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:37:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm24 with SMTP id 24so553618fxm.3 for ; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:37:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=7waHIBPfob/jm+T6VHu4k8nFi3aKFx6oIjNvZAkmC58=; b=I8cAD8bl87KuI1sV7o+JOVyGqHW5gqoMGcoRR95ge9stgGzzCs7qhyaee4K5751PyA 6fXPhYq7hzBNuflSc2JC6z7OWZGK/QVxfbxhQ5Z7QLMVJYWeuNOFVmsgOn41GQ0SwNIM fiKVGqbLOeg95Ubqj6rgNcl+qx99FmeIwJr2M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=YyFMkZPh8Xx0uqLJO2dqU8IIk+9YuX10prJ6+6dxTNiHNd4+fnCYQBM94qP/QETM+0 LN52mwgsjnvi4F1EYoUJeCq5dO54v0g8uawy1P0qu+kd6W2k7Qr6EGdapZQSdOR6IsC4 DnAEl9ZxSoGAqfOt8eqHVeOQh4bbvYjRLrXgQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.239.191.194 with SMTP id c2mr833015hbi.57.1265711878367; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:37:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4B6ED119.2060308@mailinglist.ahhyes.net> <201002080224.01343.pieter@degoeje.nl> <4B6F970F.3060909@mailinglist.ahhyes.net> <19861fba1002081754v63905bbjff660fe612b195e2@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:37:58 +0000 Message-ID: From: George Liaskos To: krad Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: J65nko , alex , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD's UFS vs Ext4 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:38:00 -0000 For what is worth these are the results on my Lenovo Thinkpad T500 with zfs= . http://global.phoronix-test-suite.com/?k=3Dprofile&u=3Dthuglife-5875-16786-= 4629 > dmesg | grep ada0 ada0 at ahcich0 bus 0 scbus0 target 0 lun 0 ada0: ATA-8 SATA 2.x device ada0: 300.000MB/s transfers (SATA 2.x, UDMA6, PIO size 8192bytes) ada0: Command Queueing enabled ada0: 238475MB (488397168 512 byte sectors: 16H 63S/T 16383C) zfs prefetch off zfs checksum on | fletcher4 zfs compression on | lzjb vfs.zfs.arc_min=3D"64M" vfs.zfs.arc_max=3D"512M" stock ufs FBSD http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=3Darticle&item=3Dlinux_bsd_opensolari= s&num=3D6 Apples and oranges, I know, the point is I don=92t feel that the IO performance is lagging on my laptop. On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:33 AM, krad wrote: > On 9 February 2010 01:54, J65nko wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:46 AM, alex wrote= : >> >> >> > I do suspect personally that the ext4 filesystem is the reason for the >> > difference here, since ext4 has a number of features such as deferred >> disk >> > writes etc. Even deleting a large file off that raid array I can see a >> > difference, prior to reformatting, i deleted a 190GB file off the raid= , >> > under UFS the delete took quite some time (well over 10 seconds), unde= r >> ext4 >> > the deletion of the same size file took about 3 seconds. >> > >> > But what I said with ext4 being faster then the aging UFS still rings >> true >> > in my mind, look at the recent Phoronix benchmarks for yourself and se= e >> (10 >> > pages of benchmarks). >> > >> > >> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=3Darticle&item=3Dfreebsd8_benchmar= ks&num=3D1 >> > (skip to page 7 of the benchmarks if you want to see the I/O stuff >> relating >> > to disk performance) >> >> According to the first page they used the default configuration of all >> benchmarked OS'es. >> And what is the default mount option on Linux "async" >> >> The FreeBSD man page for mount describes this "async" option as follows: >> >> async =A0 All I/O to the file system should be done asynchronously. >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0This is a dangerous flag to set, since it does not guar- >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0antee that the file system structure on the disk will >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0remain consistent. =A0For this reason, the async flag >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0should be used sparingly, and only when some data recov- >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0ery mechanism is present. >> >> >> The OpenBSD man page has the following additional remark: >> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The most common use of this flag is to speed up >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0restore(8) where it can give a factor of two speed in- >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0crease. >> >> Conclusion: you cannot compare filesystem performance, when you give >> one a unfair speed advantage of what could be a factor two. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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" >> > > > you are of course entirely correct, however one of the goals of more mode= rn > file systems eg ext4 is to make async safe to use, because of this speed = up. > At the end of the day faster is faster simple as. Having said that it wou= ld > be nice to see a gjournaled ufs system for comparison, as well as zfs > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.o= rg" >