From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Nov  9 12:38:32 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA91E16A512
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Thu,  9 Nov 2006 12:38:32 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from ivoras@fer.hr)
Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr (lara.cc.fer.hr [161.53.72.113])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87DF543D8D
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Thu,  9 Nov 2006 12:36:45 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from ivoras@fer.hr)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.cc.fer.hr [127.0.0.1])
	by lara.cc.fer.hr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kA9Cainl033053;
	Thu, 9 Nov 2006 13:36:44 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ivoras@fer.hr)
Message-ID: <455320DC.40302@fer.hr>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 13:36:44 +0100
From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060625)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com>
References: <E1Gi8ZC-000Dgf-QH@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <E1Gi8ZC-000Dgf-QH@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Dissapointing performance of ciss RAID 0+1 ?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 12:38:33 -0000

Pete French wrote:

> reading from the filesystem with the vfs.read_max set to 64 I now get
> 112 meg/second though ?!!! how can the filesystem give me better performance
> than the raw device ? I do not think this is  a caching issue as I am using
> a test file nearly twice the size of the RAM in the system to get round this.
> 
> I am delighted by the performance increase, but the results do not make sense.

It would be interesting for you to track iostat (i.e. run "iostat 1") 
with and without modified vfs.read_max and see if there's a difference.

In a similar experiment, you could watch gstat (also before and after) 
and see if it reports the difference.