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

From: Jesper Louis Andersen (jlouis_at_mongers.org)
Date: 01/25/05

  • Next message: Arne : "Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion"
    Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:10:14 +0100
    To: Nick Pavlica <linicks@gmail.com>
    
    

    Quoting Nick Pavlica (linicks@gmail.com):

    > 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.

    Well, I apologize if I came about that way. The fact seems to be that
    linux outperforms freebsd in your tests. The question, obviously, is
    why? To be able to answer, we need to find the places where the 2
    systems are different. I suggest creating a webpage, possibly as pure
    .txt, where all findings are posted. It makes it easier to process
    with graphical plotting tools and it lowers the bandwidth we all need
    to transfer.

    If I were you, I would drop the measurements of raw performance for a
    bit as we wouldn't gain anything from that. Instead, I would begin
    to probe the system while the tests are executing. For instance, what
    does ``vmstat 1'', ``iostat 1'' and (if applicable ``gstat'') report
    when the test is running in the respective operating systems? What about
    open filedescriptors (is the limit reached). Does ``systat -vmstat''
    show anything odd on FreeBSD while running the tests, etc? I am sure
    people can fill in more interesting probes to try.

    Using the probes might alter the outcome of the test, but as we are
    not testing for performance, this doesn't matter.

    There is a fair chance that something odd show up. On the other hand,
    if nothing shows up, we have ruled a lot of possible stuff out.

    -- 
    jlouis
    _______________________________________________
    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: Arne : "Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion
      ... > hopefully look at ways of improving the results I had with FreeBSD ... I would drop the measurements of raw performance for a ... Using the probes might alter the outcome of the test, ... There is a fair chance that something odd show up. ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • RE: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD
      ... the raw performance is very attractive to me!! ... You got link to benchmarks? ... AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD ... If battery life is important to you I'd suggest not getting an AMD64. ...
      (freebsd-current)
    • RE: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD
      ... the raw performance is very attractive to me!! ... You got link to benchmarks? ... AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD ... If battery life is important to you I'd suggest not getting an AMD64. ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • Re: confused: dns lookup woes
      ... Mike wrote in ... > a problem I have with freebsd 5.2.1 odd dns lookup results. ... > does not exist it appends the local hostname and returns odd results. ...
      (comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc)
    • GUI on horrendously old system?
      ... I run FreeBSD 5.1 (command line only) quite happily on an old p120 with ... 32mb of ram. ... just for the odd thing here and there. ...
      (comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc)