Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:26:30 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> To: Brad Knowles <blk@skynet.be> Cc: Tom <tom@uniserve.com>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Initial performance testing w/ postmark & softupdates... Message-ID: <38ACADD6.E8566B65@newsguy.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10002171018260.13540-100000@shell.uniserve.ca> <v04220823b4d1f68c1f85@[195.238.1.121]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brad Knowles wrote: > > I've run tmpfs tests with postmark on Ultra 2 and Ultra 5 systems > with faster CPUs and newer versions of the OS, and they didn't run > anywhere *NEAR* that fast (I've got an Ultra 5 I'm testing right > now). Heck, one person told me he had an older laptop running Linux > with ReiserFS and he was getting better throughput going to disk than > Sun did with tmpfs! Err... Is it fast or is it slow? You are claiming both up there... :-) > I also notice that softupdates on a slow disk beat out > Linux/ext2fs+async on a single CPU system that was otherwise > similarly configured, except for the DPT SmartRAID V controller that > the Linux server had to it's advantage, and the 5-way RAID-5 volume > that it was writing to. DPT is known to be slow, and write performance on RAID-5 is lower than on single-disk. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org "If you consider our help impolite, you should see the manager." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?38ACADD6.E8566B65>