From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 22 07:41:48 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A87716A420 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:41:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from markir@paradise.net.nz) Received: from linda-2.paradise.net.nz (bm-2a.paradise.net.nz [202.0.58.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C49343D5C for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:41:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from markir@paradise.net.nz) Received: from smtp-1.paradise.net.nz (smtp-1b.paradise.net.nz [202.0.32.210]) by linda-2.paradise.net.nz (Paradise.net.nz) with ESMTP id <0IK000GNLP32TF@linda-2.paradise.net.nz> for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 19:06:40 +1200 (NZST) Received: from [192.168.1.11] (218-101-13-56.paradise.net.nz [218.101.13.56]) by smtp-1.paradise.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 145AF839E4 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 19:00:51 +1200 (NZST) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 19:00:48 +1200 From: Mark Kirkwood In-reply-to: <1dbad31505072105401c06bee6@mail.gmail.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-id: <42E099A0.3080101@paradise.net.nz> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050511) References: <1dbad31505072105401c06bee6@mail.gmail.com> Subject: FreeBSD IO Performance (was Re: Quality of FreeBSD) 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: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:41:48 -0000 I happened to have received a 'new' machine, and wanted to see what its IO system was capable of. So took the opportunity to run 4.10 and 5.4 against each other a few times. (fresh re-installs each time). Its documented at: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/markir/freebsd/ I wanted to play with Docbook as well :-), so excuse the "book" format (might be a few typos too). But to cut to the chase, the results were overall very similar - 4.10 probably a little (4-8%) faster (allowing for run variation). So really 5.4 is reasonably fast. The actual figures weren't too bad either - 70-80Mb/s read and writes on a 2 disk ATA array. The most interesting thing discovered, was 5.4's "out of the box" sequential *read* performance was considerably less then 4.10, but could be brought up to almost the same by setting. vfs.read_max=16 Hope this provides some interest, again - gotta qualify, this is all one man's experiment on his hardware... Cheers Mark P.s : of course, it would be nice if 5.x (or perhaps more importantly 6.x) was *faster* than 4.10.... Michael Schuh wrote: > Hi, > > Now my question to you : is the performance of ata-related disk-access > under UFS-Filesystem not important for other application, so that the > performance can be a half of them that RELENG_4 does? > > In fact under RELENG_4 i can write a GIG FIle double as fast as under > RELENG_5 ! and i would not hear any thing about serial performance or > that this is not really like the real world, if i syimulate that with: > > /usr/bin/time dd if=/dev/zero of=/zerofile bs=1024 count=1024k; > this is reality poor! >