Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:41:15 +0200 From: fandino <fandino@ng.fadesa.es> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD and poor ata performance Message-ID: <41700BBB.50003@ng.fadesa.es> In-Reply-To: <20041015131432.srwo0wog000skgcs@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz> References: <416EB6B1.6060405@ng.fadesa.es> <416F849F.8020508@solid-state-logic.com> <416F90E6.10108@ng.fadesa.es> <200410151223.33355.howells@kde.org> <416FF477.4010408@ng.fadesa.es> <20041015131432.srwo0wog000skgcs@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kenneth Culver wrote: >> well, my usage pattern is write a big file and few seconds later read >> it. So my tests >> were valid for the use of the computer. >> >> But you have reason, I must provide a more formal report. I redid all >> test >> with bonnie++ and results shows Linux (56848 K/sec) two times faster than >> FreeBSD (26347 K/sec) >> >> Any help will be appreciated! >> >> >> Linux test (slackware 8.1, kernel 2.4.18, ext2 filesystem): > > > This test isn't really a fair test either. The ext2 filesystem uses > async io, > and doesn't do any kind of journaling to ensure data integrity in the > event of > a crash. FreeBSD isn't using async, it uses softupdates. Because of this > FreeBSD SHOULD be slower... but it'll be a lot more reliable than linux > in the > event of a power outage for example. The ext2 filesystem is extremely > unreliable, and will almost always lose data when there's a crash or power > outage. but then why does read/write tests over raw devices performs so bad? AFAIK on raw devices not filesystem, journaling, caches, etc are involved.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41700BBB.50003>