FreeBSD 5.3b7and poor ata performance

Julian Elischer julian at elischer.org
Mon Oct 18 12:06:54 PDT 2004


what are perfomrances when you don't go thrrough the filesystem?

how fast is:
dd if=/dev/ad0 of=/dev/null bs=128k count=10000

?


Dao-hui Chen wrote:

>I have silimilar result, but this time the OS is 4.10-stable and 6-current
>4.10: Intel ICH4 with ST380021A, Seagate's 7200rpm hard disk
>6: Intel ICH2 with IC35L040AVER07, IBM's 7200rpm hard disk
>
>Both with custom kernel, soft-update and mount as async.
>On 6-current I turn all debugging-related options off and using 
>SCHE_4BSD as default scheduler
>
>In sequential input (block), the 4.10 box got a incredible results 
>as 590747K/sec (!!!), while 6-current got only 24906K/sec
>In sequential output(block), the difference is also noticable with
>37432 vs 22180.
>
>There may be some misses in sequential input, but in sequential output
>the difference between 4.10 and 6 is noticable, about 15M/Sec.
>Considering the
>hardware difference, the difference in performance is still too large.
>
>On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:42:55 +0200, Søren Schmidt <sos at deepcore.dk> wrote:
>  
>
>>Kenneth Culver wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Quoting fandino <fandino at ng.fadesa.es>:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>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 file
>>>>>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 (always
>>>>using the same hardware). FreeBSD is by far, the worst throughput of all
>>>>(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
>>>judging
>>>from other emails I've seen from you, you're still using the GENERIC
>>>kernel.
>>>      
>>>
>>Right, and you should also use -U (softupdates) on you newfs line.
>>
>>--
>>
>>-Søren
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>freebsd-current at freebsd.org mailing list
>>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
>>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>
>>    
>>
>_______________________________________________
>freebsd-current at freebsd.org mailing list
>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>  
>



More information about the freebsd-current mailing list