Is 6.x slower then 4.x ... ?
andy at splashground.de
Mon Jul 17 09:07:33 UTC 2006
brooks wrote @ Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:02:50 -0500:
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 11:49:35AM -0300, User Freebsd wrote:
> FreeBSD 6 is slower than 4 for some things and faster for others. That
> should be expected since fine grained locking involves increased numbers
> of expensive atomic operations (which are particularly bad on Intel
> P4 and Xeon systems). The gain is that we've got significantly more
> parallelism in many areas (for example, see kris's I/O benchmarking
> presented at BSDCan). Looking at it as a thought experiment, you should
> expect microbenchmarks to perform worse, sometimes much worse. If
> your application looks like those microbenchmarks that's going to be a
> problem, if not it may or may not be.
OK. Kris presented exactly one benchmark were 6 is better (30%) and that
is with sync mounts. Sorry, but i don't know many people running async
Since none of the benchmarks from people seem to have influence on you,
why not provide benchmarks, application ones, that show that 6 is good
in anything performance wise. Until then we keep thinking it is worse,
since our benchmarking shows it to be worse (of course we are doing it
all wrong ...).
> In short the black and white question you are asking makes little
> sense. :)
It usually boils down to a black and white question like
"Use or do not use?".
More information about the freebsd-performance