about ufs filesystem io performance!

[etalk etalk]

>From: Eric Anderson <anderson at centtech.com>
>To: etalk etalk <yanyuejin2004 at hotmail.com>
>CC: freebsd-fs at freebsd.org, freebsd-performance at freebsd.org
>Subject: Re: about ufs filesystem io performance!
>Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 07:46:44 -0500
>
>etalk etalk wrote:
>>5.3 vs 6.0 The test tool is Iozone3_257, and the test command is 
>>?/iozone -A -f /mnt/tmpfile.test -g 1g -n 1m -q 8k -y 2k -R -b 
>>outfile-Af.xls ?(http://www.iozone.org/src/current/). We ran all 
>>the tests on the same PC with 2.4 GHz Pentium CPU and 512M main 
>>memory. Figure1~Figure5 show the results of the file system 
>>performance comparison between Bsd5.3’s UFS2 and Bsd6.0’s UFS2 when 
>>testing with different file system (local, sync, async, softupdate, 
>>sync+softupdate).
>>According to the figures, our conclusion is: On all kinds of file 
>>systems, the write, rewrite, read and reread performance of the two 
>>is almost same and we cant say that Bsd6.0 make a improvement on 
>>file system IO performance.
>>http://blog.csdn.net/minerboyIo/Gallery/204114.aspx
>>linux2.6.11 vs bsd 5.3 The test tool is Iozone3_257, and the test 
>>command is ?/iozone -A -f /mnt/tmpfile.test -g 1g -n 4m -q 8k -y 
>>2k -R -b outfile-Af.xls ?(http://www.iozone.org/src/current/). We 
>>ran all the tests on the same PC with 2.4 GHz Pentium CPU and 512M 
>>main memory, Figure1, Figure2, Figure3 show the results of the file 
>>system performance comparison between Bsd’s UFS2 and Linux?Ext3 
>>(the Linux kernel version is 2.6.11, and the Bsd kernel version is 
>>5.3) when testing with sync, async and local (Bsd using softupdate) 
>>file system. According to the figures, our conclusion is: a.On 
>>local file system and async file system, Fedora4’s write and 
>>rewrite is much faster than Bsd5.3’s (about 5-10 times). b.On all 
>>kinds of file systems, the read and reread performance of 
>>FreeBsd5.3 is about 50%-90% lower than that of Fedora4. c.On sync 
>>file system, Bsd5.3 writes several times faster than Fedora4 does 
>>and rewrites over two hundred times faster than Fedora4 does. 
>>http://blog.csdn.net/minerboyIo/Gallery/204107.aspx
>
>You don't report the type of disks you are using, or anything about 
>the storage.  For the first test, I'd think that it's possible that 
>you were hitting hardware performance bottlenecks before actually 
>testing the filesystem performance.
>
>Also, what are the 2,4,8 numbers referencing?  How many times did 
>you run the tests?
>
>
>Eric
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Eric Anderson        Sr. Systems Administrator        Centaur 
>Technology
>Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your reply!
My disk is Maxtor 2F040L0 with 40GB capacity , 5400 rpm and <12ms ave seek 
time, and the 2,4,8 is the block size when doing the writes and reads, We 
do the tests two times,and the results is same,One of the results is in the 
attachment!

According to the conclusions,our puzzles is :
 
   a. Why the write and rewrite performance of FreeBsd5.3 is so lower than 
that of Fedora4 in async system or in local system? Can we improve the 
performace by tuning the FreeBsd5.3's kernel or by making some modifition 
to the kernel of FreeBsd5.3 in the file vfs_bio.c?

   b. Is Bsd6.0 make improvement in file system io performance when 
comparing to Bsd5.3?
 
  I am eager to have your reply!


Best 
Regards

etalk

_________________________________________________________________
ÓëÁª»úµÄÅóÓѽøÐн»Á÷£¬ÇëʹÓà MSN Messenger:  http://messenger.msn.com/cn