From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 6 23:00:15 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E7C16A4D6; Fri, 6 May 2005 23:00:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from srv1.cosmo-project.de (srv1.cosmo-project.de [213.83.6.106]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B270D43D68; Fri, 6 May 2005 23:00:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely5.cicely.de (cicely5.cicely.de [10.1.1.7]) (authenticated bits=0)j46N084J075064 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Sat, 7 May 2005 01:00:11 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (cicely12.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301::12]) by cicely5.cicely.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j46MxRhs023063 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 7 May 2005 00:59:28 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j46MxRPR028934; Sat, 7 May 2005 00:59:27 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id j46MxROK028933; Sat, 7 May 2005 00:59:27 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 00:59:27 +0200 From: Bernd Walter To: Kris Kennaway Message-ID: <20050506225926.GB75629@cicely12.cicely.de> References: <20050506183529.GA46411@xor.obsecurity.org> <20050506184852.GA62656@xor.obsecurity.org> <20050506200635.GB79102@xor.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050506200635.GB79102@xor.obsecurity.org> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD cicely12.cicely.de 5.2-CURRENT alpha User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no version=2.64 X-Spam-Report: * -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0042] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on cicely12.cicely.de cc: smp@freebsd.org cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Benchmarking mpsafevfs with parallel tarball extraction X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: ticso@cicely.de List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 23:00:15 -0000 On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:06:35PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 11:48:52AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 11:35:29AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > > I might be bumping into the bandwidth of md here - when I ran less > > > rigorous tests with lower concurrency of extractions I seemed to be > > > getting marginally better performance (about an effective concurrency > > > of 2.2 for both 3 and 10 simultaneous extractions - so at least it > > > doesn't seem to degrade badly). Or this might be reflecting VFS lock > > > contention (which there is certainly a lot of, according to mutex > > > profiling traces). > > > > I suspect that I am hitting the md bandwidth: > > > > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/md0 bs=1024k count=500 > > 500+0 records in > > 500+0 records out > > 524288000 bytes transferred in 9.501760 secs (55177988 bytes/sec) Wasn't md's blocksize = systems's pagesize, IIRC 8k on sparc. I'm surprised that 1k even works. -- B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de bernd@bwct.de info@bwct.de