From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 27 21:34:26 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E74916A415 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:34:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cracauer@koef.zs64.net) Received: from koef.zs64.net (koef.zs64.net [212.12.50.230]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417E443D4C for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:34:25 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cracauer@koef.zs64.net) Received: from koef.zs64.net (koef.zs64.net [212.12.50.230]) by koef.zs64.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id k9RLYNWw086941; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:34:23 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from cracauer@koef.zs64.net) Received: (from cracauer@localhost) by koef.zs64.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id k9RLYM6v086937; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:34:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from cracauer) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:34:22 -0400 From: Martin Cracauer To: NOC Meganet , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20061027213422.GA86642@cons.org> References: <20061014130331.68863.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200610141313.28868.tec@mega.net.br> <20061014180518.GA75972@Geeks.ORG> <200610150045.42927.tec@mega.net.br> <20061015144638.GB98831@Geeks.ORG> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061015144638.GB98831@Geeks.ORG> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:34:26 -0000 Wasn't Dragonfly split off to do exactly what some troll here wanted? Use FreeBSD-4.x as a base for a *BSD. I would be curious to know whether Dragonfly-current or whatever they name it fix the performance problems assumed (but not proven). Or whether Dragonfly went into difficulties with thread libraries, API details and new hardware idioticy, too. Makes you wonder why none of the commerical vendors that did not change to FreeBSD-6 didn't change to Dragonfly either. BTW, if you want to see how professional SATA-II is just turn the write cache on the drive off (as you theoretically must to ensure data integrety) and try the same on SCSI. I actually don't understand the reason but under SCSI you lose 20% or somesuch write performance, under SATA you lose 90+%. > > > > I had no time to test it on a life webserver and probably can't do > > > > it so soon but I tell you that a 10K Raptor is faster then a 15K > > > > 320Mb SCSI when compiling world or untarring large files. Also NCQ > > > > is not reserved to SCSI anymore so when you see the price then it is > > > > becoming a valid option for small servers. NCQ is not working for many common SATA controller drivers under Linux or FreeBSD, most notably NForce (unless that changed recently). The reason why the SCSI disk is so slow is most likely that your controller has a FreeBSD driver which is giant-locked. `make world` without "-j" doesn't really stress the harddrive's seeking, which is where the faster SCSI disk would shine. For just linear accesses SCSI is actually very disappointing these days. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ FreeBSD - where you want to go, today. http://www.freebsd.org/