Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 10:31:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Jake Hamby <jehamby@lightside.com> To: Jaye Mathisen <mrcpu@cdsnet.net> Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@ki.net>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Iozone: local vs nfs drives Message-ID: <Pine.AUX.3.94.961017102626.28944A-100000@covina.lightside.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.95.961017025714.16113R-100000@mail.cdsnet.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Jaye Mathisen wrote: > > > I would be interested in the answer to this, I see the same behaviour on > a 2940/Quantum Atlas combo, although the numbers are quite a bit higher. > :) > > In any case, given specifically the issue of news, where most activity is > reading, this is disturbing. > > > vs local drive (1.78M/s and 938k/s): > > IOZONE performance measurements: > > 1784080 bytes/second for writing the file > > 938585 bytes/second for reading the file I'm not a filesystem expert, but the results sound normal to me. Writing is _often_ faster than reading on modern operating systems and hard drives that I've used. Both the OS and the hard drive cache the data as it's being written and are therefore able to stream it out to the disk as fast as possible. However, for reads, the program has to request the data, _then_ the hard drive has to fetch it, _then_ it has to move from the buffer cache into your program, while your program is waiting, and can't submit the next request. So whereas with writes you are pushing the data out to disk and the write buffering works in your favor, with reads you are pulling data from the disk and there is extra latency while your program is captive waiting for the request. At least that's how I would explain the situation. Can any FS hackers confirm/reject my hypothesis? -- Jake
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.AUX.3.94.961017102626.28944A-100000>