From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 8 17:34:29 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 A880516A404; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:34:29 +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 5455913C4A6; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:34:29 +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 1HPMVX-000D2n-MB; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 18:34:27 +0100 Message-ID: <45F04921.8020801@fluffles.net> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 18:34:25 +0100 From: Fluffles User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061114) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ivan Voras 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> <45F032B9.7090102@fluffles.net> <45F03FB9.5000602@fer.hr> In-Reply-To: <45F03FB9.5000602@fer.hr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, 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 17:34:29 -0000 Ivan Voras wrote: > Fluffles wrote: > > >> 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. >> > > I'm really puzzled by your high per-char results in bonnie++. Can you > run it on a single disk? I've run it many times, both on hardware and > software RAIDs and have never seen results > 1 MB/s on FreeBSD (Linux is > a different matter...) > Sure: single drive (ad6, Maxtor MaxLine III 250GB SATA/150) -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU 20480 56395 42.7 55904 12.8 21497 5.9 56846 54.3 58328 8.2 81.2 0.3 Here the CPU is not the bottleneck but the disk itself. CPU is AMD Athlon 64 3800+ (dualcore, 2.0GHz, 2x512KB cache, S939, 2x1GB DDR/400). Maybe you are running a patched bonnie? By the way i'm not using bonnie++ but the 'original' bonnie. Maybe that changes things a bit? >From all the benchmarks i've seen and all that i've performed myself, i've never seen that low per char scores like you. I cannot explain it except maybe a *very* slow CPU or some other obscure software issue. - Veronica