Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 09:55:06 -0700 From: Matthew Jacob <mj@feral.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sysbench / fileio - Linux vs. FreeBSD Message-ID: <4C0A816A.9040403@feral.com> In-Reply-To: <4C0A7F2F.3030105@elischer.org> References: <4C09932B.6040808@wooh.hu> <201006050236.17697.bruce@cran.org.uk> <4C09FC43.8070804@wooh.hu> <4C0A7F2F.3030105@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
All of these tests have been apples vs. oranges for years. The following seems to be true, though: a) FreeBSD sequential write performance in UFS has always been less than optimal. b) Linux sequential write performance in just about any filesystem has always been "impressive". But that "impressive" has come at some not so obvious costs. First of all, Linux is probably the most aggressive cluster/write-behind OS I've even seen. You can suck down all available memory with writebehind using dd. This means that some stats are "impressive", and others are "painful". A desktop that becomes completely unresponsive while you're doing this dd is one personal outcome. Also, you have to be careful what you're asking for in comparing the two platforms, or any platforms for that matter. What do you want to optimize for? Apparent responsiveness as a desktop? A specific workload (nfs, cifs) that completes N quatloos per fortnight?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C0A816A.9040403>