Re: freebsd-performance Digest, Vol 4, Issue 9

From: Eric Anderson (anderson_at_centtech.com)
Date: 06/23/03

  • Next message: Jeff Roberson: "Re: ten thousand small processes" 
    Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:58:33 -0500
To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>

    Alexander Leidinger wrote:
    > On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 07:37:25 -0500
    > Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Interestingly enough, I found FreeBSD 4.8 to be faster at local disk
    >>writes than FreeBSD 5.1. About 50% faster.
    >
    >
    > 5.1 isn't tuned yet to deliver high performance, so it isn't a surprise
    > to see a lower performance than 4.x. But 50% is much... are you sure you
    > did the test under the same conditions (e.g. are you sure the write
    > cache was off (or on) in both cases, no debugging switches activated in
    > the kernel/userland)?

    I attempted to create the same environment, but I didn't force anything
    to be the same. In other words, what I did was swap the boot drive out
    from 4.8 to 5.1 and back again, each time testing the differences in
    speed. Same RAIDed partitions were tested, so it was tested on ufs,
    with the same tests, and consistant results. I didn't turn on/off write
    caching on either, so if the defaults are different between them, that
    could be the problem..

    Eric 

    -- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Anderson	   Systems Administrator      Centaur Technology
Attitudes are contagious, is yours worth catching?
------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
  • Next message: Jeff Roberson: "Re: ten thousand small processes"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: FreeBSD beginner (NetBSD advanced)
      ... while high performance is always cool, stable performance is even more ... not true with FreeBSD. ... > Read the handbook on building the kernel. ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • Re: Base packaging
      ... On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 11:25, Alexander Leidinger wrote: ... >> I looked into this originally so that I could use the standard BSD make ... I wouldn't want it restricted to just FreeBSD ... > We have programs in the ports tree which use our bsd.*.mk ...
      (freebsd-current)
    • freebsd-performance Digest, Vol 4, Issue 9
      ... I found FreeBSD 4.8 to be faster at local disk ... On my system results of tests with FreeBSD 4.8 and FreeBSD ... I not tested RAID-5 because now hard disks have low cost and using RAID-5 ...
      (freebsd-performance)
    • Re: freebsd-performance Digest, Vol 4, Issue 9
      ... > Test utils are rawio and dd with many fork process. ... I found FreeBSD 4.8 to be faster at local disk ...
      (freebsd-performance)
    • Re: Intel PowerTop tool on FreeBSD?
      ... Alexander Leidinger wrote: ... Seems that it's not useful for the FreeBSD. ... WBR, Andrey V. Elsukov ...
      (freebsd-current)