FreeBSD and poor ata performance
fandino at ng.fadesa.es
Fri Oct 15 10:41:17 PDT 2004
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
>> 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
but then why does read/write tests over raw devices performs so bad?
AFAIK on raw devices not filesystem, journaling, caches, etc are involved.
More information about the freebsd-questions