Phoronix Benchmarks: Waht's wrong with FreeBSD 8.0?

[Johan Hendriks]

>O. Hartmann wrote:
>> I'm just wondering what's wrong with FreeBSD 8.0/amd64 when I read
the
>> Benchmarks on Phoronix.org's website. Especially FreeBSD's threaded
I/O
>> shows in contrast to all claims that have been to be improoved the
>> opposite.

>Instead of trying to compare something, I propose to look on that
>numbers itself first:
>- first test tells that average write latency is about 100us. But it
>looks quite surprising for Laptop HDD, which has seek time of at least
>several milliseconds.
>- second test - a bit closer to life - 2-3ms - ok, Linux won here
>slightly, as FreeBSD installation in this test had no NCQ support.
>- third test - 9us per write on Linux. I am just crying.
>- forth test - all OSes gave 50-80us. Probably it is just a buffer case
>read time.

>So most of shown cases are testing almost only file system cache
>parameters. It is just insane to compare them for so different systems
>with so different write-back policies.

>If somebody still have questions, after some UFS parameters tuning I've
>got with the same tiotest tool:
>- Random Write latency - 15us,
>- Random Read latency - 7us.

What kind of UFS parameter tunings.

>So who can beat my FreeBSD? :)))

>What's about second test. To check possible NCQ effect I've built test
>setup with new 320GB 7200RPM Seagate drive connected to Intel ICH10R
>controller. I've run IMHO more reasonable benchmark/raidtest tool from
>ports on whole device, to execute pregenerated random mix of 10000
>random-sized (512B - 128KB) read/write requests using default ata(4)
>driver and new ahci(4):
>Number of READ requests: 5029.
>Number of WRITE requests: 4971.
>Number of bytes to transmit: 655986688.
>Number of processes: 32.

>The results:
>ata(4) - no NCQ:
>Bytes per second: 12455402
>Requests per second: 189
>ahci(4) - with NCQ:
>Bytes per second: 19889778
>Requests per second: 303

>Results are repeatable up to the 4-th digit. Average time per request
is
>5.29ms and 3.3ms respectively, that is realistic for this drive.

>So, with such difference, I believe, we will not loose this test any
more.

>-- 
>Alexander Motin

If things ar tuned for old hardware, which hardware are we talking about
i386? Or i486?
Maybe we should set the defaults for AMD64 in a way that modern hardware
can handle.

AMD64 is a for modern hardware, it does not run on a pentium3.

Regards,
Johan Hendriks