Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 10:37:32 -0800 (PST) From: Tom <tom@uniserve.com> To: Brad Knowles <blk@skynet.be> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Initial performance testing w/ postmark & softupdates... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10002171018260.13540-100000@shell.uniserve.ca> In-Reply-To: <v04220816b4d1a39aa381@[195.238.1.121]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Brad Knowles wrote: ... > Hmm. That sure makes me wonder what the *HECK* they were using > for their TMPFS tests! That said, notice that performance on MFS ... Uhhh... the paper says that an Ultra 1/170 running Solaris 2.5. That is an old system. I'm not sure how comparing benchmark results from 1998 with current hardware is relevant at all. Postmark is performance is influenced more by the disk & controller used, rather than the OS. In fact, CPU is not much of any issue either. In fact, SMP is probably slowing the results down! You also compare results versus a NetApp F630. I hope you realize that these are VERY old units. They came with Wide SCSI disks (not Ultra, not Ultra2) for instance. It doesn't mention, but I expect the test was only done over 100BaseT. In that case, the 100BaseT network would have been the limiting factor. Also, the existing base model NetApp, the F720 has over twice the performance of the F630! And I've been told that NetApp doesn't really sell anything but the high-end F760, which has over twice the performance of the F720. The entire F700 is already pretty old, and is scheduled to be replaced by a new series this year. So please, postmark is a useful tool. See my previous e-mails about postmark+softupdates. But comparing results when a two year old document is meaningless. Especially with disk/controller performance doubling every year or so. Tom Uniserve 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?Pine.BSF.4.05.10002171018260.13540-100000>