Tuning my PC64 (heh!)
Kirk Strauser
kirk at strauser.com
Wed Apr 16 13:35:53 PDT 2003
At 2003-03-22T05:31:45Z, Kirk Strauser <kirk at strauser.com> writes:
> 2) I've installed a Tekram DC-390f U/W SCSI card, and two U/W drives: a 4GB
> IBM and a 9GB IBM. Throughput is dismal, to say the least:
> bonnie++ on the 9GB:
>
> Version 1.93c ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
> Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
> Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
> gopher.honeypo 300M 6 99 9349 94 4957 68 11 99 12079 96 235.7 106
> Latency 1586ms 145ms 138ms 803ms 13585us 1979ms
> Version 1.93c ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
> gopher.honeypot.net -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
> files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
> 16 92 11 4292 99 155 12 83 10 4124 99 257 24
> Latency 488ms 1891us 262ms 364ms 2565us 257ms
I recently upgrade from 4.7-STABLE to 4.8-STABLE. At the same time, I
switched from running my Etherexpress Pro 100 (fxp) NICs in polled mode from
interrupted mode, and removed "options HZ=1000" from my kernel. The new
benchmarks are much more reasonable:
Version 1.93c ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
gopher.honeypo 300M 11 99 14286 90 6779 54 19 99 19580 92 266.4 60
Latency 741ms 34686us 118ms 441ms 28710us 2597ms
Version 1.93c ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
gopher.honeypot.net -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 1819 95 4697 91 3126 95 1544 77 5027 98 2512 88
Latency 213ms 252ms 51272us 375ms 1405us 17868us
1.93c,1.93c,gopher.honeypot.net,1,1050522814,300M,,11,99,14286,90,6779,54,19,99,19580,92,266.4,60,16,,,,,1819,95,4697,91,3126,95,1544,77,5027,98,2512,88,741ms,34686us,118ms,441ms,28710us,2597ms,213ms,252ms,51272us,375ms,1405us,17868us
No hardware upgrades of any kind were involved; just a little bit of
tuning. I'm posting this to save future PC64 hobbyists a bit of trouble.
--
Kirk Strauser
More information about the freebsd-alpha
mailing list