From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 13 20:44:56 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A8001065697 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 20:44:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from oberman@es.net) Received: from mailgw.es.net (mail1.es.net [IPv6:2001:400:201:1::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CC7C8FC15 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 20:44:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ptavv.es.net (ptavv.es.net [IPv6:2001:400:910::29]) by mailgw.es.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7DKirA3032299 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:44:54 -0700 Received: from ptavv.es.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ptavv.es.net (Tachyon Server) with ESMTP id BED701CC3B; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:44:53 -0700 (PDT) To: Stefan Bethke In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 13 Aug 2010 22:23:08 +0200." <1B284ECC-9A69-4727-9F9F-7A85C8374463@lassitu.de> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:44:53 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" Message-Id: <20100813204453.BED701CC3B@ptavv.es.net> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.0.10011, 1.0.148, 0.0.0000 definitions=2010-08-13_05:2010-08-13, 2010-08-13, 1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=5.0.0-1005130000 definitions=main-1008130163 Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Inconsistent IO performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 20:44:56 -0000 > From: Stefan Bethke > Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 22:23:08 +0200 > > Am 13.08.2010 um 18:01 schrieb Kevin Oberman: > > > Note the dramatic differences even on the same kernel. For the December > > 6 kernel, for example, I see a maximum of 23,676,086 and a minimum of > > just 18,304,565. ???? > > Are the disks still OK? If any sectors have been remapped between > runs, additional seeks would be needed. I think it's unlikely, but > checking with smartmontools should only take a few minutes. I should have mentioned that I have smartmontools installed on all of my systems and I had already looked at the results. The data shows both working well and having no errors of late. Also, the speeds jump up and down rather randomly makes this rather unlikely as the redirected blocks only increase and the likelihood of files being created and deleted frequently enough for this to have such a large impact seems pretty unlikely. Thanks for taking a look, though. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751