From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 21 23:39:06 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 818A416A407 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:39:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from markir@paradise.net.nz) Received: from smtp3.clear.net.nz (smtp3.clear.net.nz [203.97.33.64]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4377013C44E for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:39:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from markir@paradise.net.nz) Received: from [192.168.1.11] (121-72-65-158.dsl.telstraclear.net [121.72.65.158]) by smtp3.clear.net.nz (CLEAR Net Mail) with ESMTP id <0JAN00EJ8DP45I30@smtp3.clear.net.nz> for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:39:04 +1300 (NZDT) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:39:04 +1300 From: Mark Kirkwood In-reply-to: <20061221092510.bb5fd241.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> To: Bill Moran Message-id: <458B1B18.4020400@paradise.net.nz> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <45888C68.10305@paradise.net.nz> <200612200816.51043.joao@matik.com.br> <4589128F.9030404@paradise.net.nz> <200612210631.31088.joao@matik.com.br> <458A5C04.9060109@paradise.net.nz> <20061221092510.bb5fd241.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061129) Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, JoaoBR Subject: Re: Cached file read performance with 6.2-PRERELEASE 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: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:39:06 -0000 Bill Moran wrote: > In response to Mark Kirkwood : >> JoaoBR wrote: >> >>> I am not convinced that this kind of test is of any value for comparing >>> systems at all because there are too much factors involved - unless the >>> competitors are installed on identical hardware. On the other side I think it >>> is usefull to compare tweaked settings on a particular machine. For example >>> you may change fsize/bsize of the filesystem or any other and can compare >>> this results then. >>> >> Exactly, that's why I did the comparison - I think you missed the part >> where I mentioned the 2 systems were *identical* with respect to cpus, >> memory, mobo - in fact even the power supplies are identical too! (snippage) >> In fact, to indulge your skepticism ('cause I think this is a real issue >> worth sorting out), I booted the FreeBSD system with a Gentoo livecd >> and ran the same tests there... and guess what - identical results to >> the installed Gentoo system...so... errm - *my* experimental method is >> sound...so how about we just get together and see how to make FreeBSD >> kick Gentoo eh? > > I looks like your testing methodology is sound, and that you've > uncovered an issue worth pursuing. > > I recommend starting this thread up on freebsd-performance@. The folks > on that list are more likely to jump all over this kind of thing. > Great - I'm not subscribed to -performance (that is easily fixed tho...), so I'll set that up and follow your suggestion! > You might also find helpful people on the current@ and hackers@ lists. > My gut tells me that any changes that can improve this will be large > enough that they'll have to go through CURRENT first, then get MFCed > back in to 6. Right, no worries there (I can upgrade to CURRENT on my test machine...should be an interesting exercise in itself!) > Keep in mind also that the holidays tend to slow things down, it might > be early January before you get a lot of people looking at this issue > seriously. > Yeah - Merry Xmas to you all! Cheers Mark P.s : JoaoBR, apologies for coming on a bit strong...it was merely my enthusiasm to get to the bottom (or even the beginning...) of what is going on here!