From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 8 15:58:54 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A9F316A402; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 15:58:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from etc@fluffles.net) Received: from auriate.fluffles.net (cust.95.160.adsl.cistron.nl [195.64.95.160]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DE2A13C442; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 15:58:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from etc@fluffles.net) Received: from destiny ([10.0.0.21]) by auriate.fluffles.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1HPL11-000B1A-2p; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 16:58:51 +0100 Message-ID: <45F032B9.7090102@fluffles.net> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 16:58:49 +0100 From: Fluffles User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061114) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Anderson References: <20070306020826.GA18228@nowhere> <45ECF00D.3070101@samsco.org><20070306050312.GA2437@nowhere><008101c75fcc$210c74a0$0c00a8c0@Artem> <001a01c7601d$5d635ee0$0c00a8c0@Artem> <001801c7603a$5339e020$0c00a8c0@Artem> <20070307105144.1d4a382f@daydream.goid.lan><002801c760e2$5cb5eb50$0c00a8c0@Artem> <005b01c760e6$9a798bf0$0c00a8c0@Artem> <001601c760ee$f76fa300$0c00a8c0@Artem> <45EF2252.1000202@fluffles.net> <45EF253B.8030909@fer.hr> <45EF9B8F.4000201@fluffles.net> <45EFA0C6.3060905@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <45EFA0C6.3060905@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras , freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Some Unix benchmarks for those who are interesed X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:58:54 -0000 Eric Anderson wrote: > On 03/07/07 23:13, Fluffles wrote: >> >> On what hardware is this? Using any form of geom software RAID? >> >> The low Per Char results would lead me to believe it's a very slow CPU; >> maybe VIA C3 or some old pentium? Modern systems should get 100MB/s+ in >> per-char bonnie benchmark, even a Sempron 2600+ 1.6GHz 128KB cache which >> costs about $39. Then it might be logical DD gets higher results since >> this is more 'easy' to handle by the CPU. The VFS/UFS layer adds >> potential for nice performance-increases but it does take it's toll in >> the form of cputime overhead. If your CPU is very slow, i can imagine >> these optimizations having a detrimental effect instead. Just >> guessing here. > > > Before making speculative claims about slow CPU's and putting the VIA > C3 in with that pile, please at least refer to what makes you believe > that it is an issue. Comparing the VIA C3 to 'some old pentium' isn't > exactly fair or accurate, and inferring it isn't a modern system isn't > true either. I'm sorry if i offended you. But it is well-known that C3 Nehemiah has a much lower IPC than processors from AMD and Intel. For general purpose comparisons, i would guess a 400MHz Athlon 64 to outperform the 1GHz C3 Nehemiah; just guessing here! Not to talk about Core2Duo who has even higher IPC. Though Nehemiah does have some fancy MPEG/AES hardware acceleration stuff built-in, which makes it a suitable platform for a Media Center or anything like that. Personally i think a budget AMD processor to be a better option; they have the same power consumption under standby mode (thanks to Cool'N'Quiet) but can deliver much higher performance when needed (such as HighDef 1080p video?). The bonnie Per Char-benchmark is often bottlenecked by the CPU since it requires either a lot of cpu power or a lot of memory activity; both which puts demands on the cpu. If i see only 0.5MB in the Per Char-benchmark, i would suspect a slow CPU. Slow is a relative term though; C3 can be powerful enough for the task you bought it, so i don't want to discredit it. - Veronica