Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion

From: Nick Pavlica (linicks_at_gmail.com)
Date: 01/25/05

  • Next message: Jesper Louis Andersen: "Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion" 
    Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:11:27 -0700
To: Petri Helenius <pete@he.iki.fi>

    I didn't change any of the default mount options on either OS.

    ################################################################
    FreeBSD:
    ################################################################
    # cat /etc/fstab
    # Device Mountpoint FStype Options Dump Pass#
    /dev/ad0s1b none swap sw 0 0
    /dev/ad0s1a / ufs rw 1 1
    /dev/ad0s1e /tmp ufs rw 2 2
    /dev/ad0s1f /usr ufs rw 2 2
    /dev/ad0s1d /var ufs rw 2 2
    /dev/acd0 /cdrom cd9660 ro,noauto 0 0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    # mount
    /dev/ad0s1a on / (ufs, local)
    devfs on /dev (devfs, local)
    /dev/ad0s1e on /tmp (ufs, local, soft-updates)
    /dev/ad0s1f on /usr (ufs, local, soft-updates)
    /dev/ad0s1d on /var (ufs, local, soft-updates)
    ################################################################
    Linux:
    ################################################################
    # cat /etc/fstab
    # This file is edited by fstab-sync - see 'man fstab-sync' for details
    LABEL=/1 / xfs defaults 1 1
    LABEL=/boot1 /boot xfs defaults 1 2
    none /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0
    none /dev/shm tmpfs defaults 0 0
    none /proc proc defaults 0 0
    none /sys sysfs defaults 0 0
    LABEL=SWAP-sda2 swap swap defaults 0 0
    /dev/scd0 /media/cdrom auto
    pamconsole,exec,noauto,managed 0 0
    /dev/fd0 /media/floppy auto
    pamconsole,exec,noauto,managed 0 0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    # mount
    /dev/sda3 on / type xfs (rw)
    none on /proc type proc (rw)
    none on /sys type sysfs (rw)
    none on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620)
    usbfs on /proc/bus/usb type usbfs (rw)
    /dev/sda1 on /boot type xfs (rw)
    none on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw)
    none on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type binfmt_misc (rw)
    sunrpc on /var/lib/nfs/rpc_pipefs type rpc_pipefs (rw)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    --Nick

    On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:08:52 +0200, Petri Helenius <pete@he.iki.fi> wrote:
    >
    > Are you sure you aren't comparing filesystems with different mount
    > options? Async comes to mind first.
    >
    > Pete
    >
    >
    > Nick Pavlica wrote:
    >
    > >All,
    > > I would like to start addressing some of the feedback that I have
    > >been given. I started this discussion because I felt that it was
    > >important to share the information I discovered in my testing. I also
    > >want to reiterate my earlier statement that this is not an X vs. X
    > >discussion, but an attempt to better understand the results, and
    > >hopefully look at ways of improving the results I had with FreeBSD
    > >5.x. I'm also looking forward to seeing the improvements to the 5.x
    > >branch as it matures. I want to make it very clear that this is NOT A
    > >"Religious/Engineering War", please don't try to turn it into one.
    > >
    > >That said, lets move on to something more productive. I installed
    > >both operating systems using as many default options as possible and
    > >updated them with all of the latest patches. I was logged in via SSH
    > >from my workstation while running the tests. I didn't have X, running
    > >on any of the installations because it wasn't need. CPU and RAM
    > >utilization wasn't an issue during any of the tests, but the disk I/O
    > >performance was dramatically different. Please keep in mind that I
    > >ran these tests over and over to see if I had consistent results. I
    > >even did the same tests on other pieces of equipment not listed in my
    > >notes that yielded the same results time and time again. Some have
    > >confirmed that they have had similar results in there testing using
    > >other testing tools and methods. This makes me wounder why the gap is
    > >so large, and how it can be improved?
    > >
    > >I think that it would be beneficial to have others in this group do
    > >similar testing and post there results. This may help those that are
    > >working on the OS itself to find trouble areas, and ways to improve
    > >them. It may also help clarify many of the response questions because
    > >you will be able to completely control the testing environment. I
    > >look forward to seeing the testing results, and any good feedback that
    > >helps identify specific tuning options, or bugs that need to be
    > >addressed.
    > >
    > >Thanks!
    > >--Nick Pavlica
    > >--Laramie, WY
    > >_______________________________________________
    > >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"
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    _______________________________________________
    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: Jesper Louis Andersen: "Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion"

    Relevant Pages