Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:42:55 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F8ren_Schmidt?= <sos@DeepCore.dk> To: Kenneth Culver <culverk@sweetdreamsracing.biz> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3b7and poor ata performance Message-ID: <4173D66F.6010200@DeepCore.dk> In-Reply-To: <20041018100045.f8koww0skcco0woo@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz> References: <20041015190638.C5A0E5D04@ptavv.es.net> <41715E7F.7060509@ng.fadesa.es> <20041018100045.f8koww0skcco0woo@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kenneth Culver wrote: > Quoting fandino <fandino@ng.fadesa.es>: >=20 >> Hello Kevin, >> >> Kevin Oberman wrote: >> >>>> Tests were done win bonnie++ 1.93c and the results were Linux two >>>> times faster than FreeBSD using the same hardware. >>>> >>>> GNU/Linux 2.4.18 with ext2: 56848 K/sec >>>> FreeBSD 5.3b7 with default fs: 26347 K/sec >>>> FreeBSD 5.3b7 ata raid0* (two disks): 26131 K/sec >>>> FreeBSD 5.3b7 geom stripe* (two disks): 30063 K/sec >>> >>> >>> >>> Are you comparing apples with apples? I believe that Linux mounts fil= e >>> systems as async by default. To compare with FreeBSD, you should use = "-o >>> async" when you mount. Of course, this is less reliable. >>> >>> Also, make sure that disk write-cache is enabled on both or disabled = on >>> both. >> >> >> write-cache was enable on all tests and disks were in UDMA5 mode. >> >> In this new round of tests I add FreeBSD witch async and OpenBSD (alwa= ys >> using the same hardware). FreeBSD is by far, the worst throughput of a= ll >> (about 50% slower than others) :-? >> >> GNU/Linux 2.4.18 with ext2: 56848 K/sec >> FreeBSD 5.3b7 with default fs: 26347 K/sec >> FreeBSD 5.3b7 with default fs(async): 26566 K/sec >> FreeBSD 5.3b7 ata raid0* (two disks): 26131 K/sec >> FreeBSD 5.3b7 geom stripe* (two disks): 30063 K/sec >> FreeBSD 5.3b7 geom stripe** (four disks): 31891 K/sec >> OpenBSD 3.5 UFS fs: 55277 K/sec >> >> * Each disk of the raid had a throughput of approx. 15000 K/sec >> ** Each disk of the raid had a throughput of approx. 7500 K/sec >> Each disk of the read split the throughput by half. >> >> How is possible that FreeBSD performs as bad? >> >> > If you're still using the GENERIC kernel, that could explain it, and=20 > judging > from other emails I've seen from you, you're still using the GENERIC=20 > kernel. Right, and you should also use -U (softupdates) on you newfs line. --=20 -S=F8ren
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4173D66F.6010200>