From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 30 00:10:30 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F25016A511 for ; Tue, 30 May 2006 00:10:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joao.barros@gmail.com) Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.176]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C31643D4C for ; Tue, 30 May 2006 00:10:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from joao.barros@gmail.com) Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id o67so170956pye for ; Mon, 29 May 2006 17:10:29 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=olnQb6fSO5LMCA3ZyXx/yWUswcOLg4gD38EJLONI4kLFYvswI8WuJcCdD2+9GX/NT/pHv8FeKp1DvW76kjH10BfgXF5qus2H8aENejBwiDnEMxnmRK6tBLTVvPrahV6TG2B2/gfcwhNBG/UMFoKwv0xcWR+z8QvgrlVmIDorFuk= Received: by 10.35.31.14 with SMTP id i14mr3887955pyj; Mon, 29 May 2006 17:10:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.35.20 with HTTP; Mon, 29 May 2006 17:10:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <70e8236f0605291710r70a32df4yfcfdba18d1bbb0a9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 01:10:29 +0100 From: "Joao Barros" To: "Mike Jakubik" In-Reply-To: <44788DB2.6070709@rogers.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060525174211.46064.qmail@web36315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4475F75C.4090908@rogers.com> <447879D3.1070204@WhiteOakLabs.com> <44788DB2.6070709@rogers.com> Cc: "Dr. Rich Murphey" , performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Poor Samba throughput on 6.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 00:10:30 -0000 On 5/27/06, Mike Jakubik wrote: > Dr. Rich Murphey wrote: > > I get 25 to 30MB/sec between FreeBSD 6.0 and Windows XP > > clients with tcp.inflight disabled and interrupt polling enabled > > on a 1gb link without jumbo frames. > > > > The various Linux distributions do about the same on this hardware - > > 3ware striped raid arrays, dual xeon, and 2Gb ram. > > > > in smb.conf I'm using: > > socket options =3D TCP_NODELAY > > strict locking =3D no > > use sendfile =3D yes > > > > Adding the last two options of my setup increased the upload rate by > about 2MB/s, with peaks totaling to 20MB/s. The download rate has not > been effected however. I went from 7.5MB/s up to 9.3MB/s on a 100FD connection just by adding that same last 2 options, I only had "socket options =3D IPTOS_LOWDELAY TCP_NODELAY" Thanks Rich! > > > 6.1 should be easier to tune in that tcp.inflight is selectively > > disabled by default for low latency (LAN) connections. > > I am using -CURRENT here, disabling net.inet.tcp.inflight improves the > download rate by 2MB/s! > How old is that CURRENT? I believe that shouldn't happen after Andre's commit back in March. I can't see any difference toggling inflight on or off. --=20 Joao Barros From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 30 00:59:22 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2B016A420 for ; Tue, 30 May 2006 00:59:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mikej@rogers.com) Received: from smtp106.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp106.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com [68.142.225.204]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7DA6E43D46 for ; Tue, 30 May 2006 00:59:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mikej@rogers.com) Received: (qmail 3649 invoked from network); 30 May 2006 00:59:20 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=rogers.com; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To:Cc:User-Agent:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:Importance; b=l39X+q0w2d6ygoivi8yz6+Q6c2E8RPjWicxscJabPpwZqNDwqMDjxQvHbqPr2sjpmE0EOTkl2e5olavzFsoLsuqmYcWHS1EGILfsFAWsEjuy6IELh+it5Ge6Nkvsk73amS9d8Mr5bU309f1bh0dUCt/uHKC06Wi26Oy1jIl9KaI= ; Received: from unknown (HELO 172.16.0.1) (mikej@rogers.com@66.96.18.43 with login) by smtp106.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 May 2006 00:59:20 -0000 Received: from 172.16.0.199 (SquirrelMail authenticated user mikej) by 172.16.0.1 with HTTP; Mon, 29 May 2006 20:59:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1083.172.16.0.199.1148950758.squirrel@172.16.0.1> Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 20:59:18 -0400 (EDT) From: "Mike Jakubik" To: "Joao Barros" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Cc: "Dr. Rich Murphey" , performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Poor Samba throughput on 6.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 00:59:23 -0000 On Mon, May 29, 2006 8:10 pm, Joao Barros wrote: > On 5/27/06, Mike Jakubik wrote: >> I am using -CURRENT here, disabling net.inet.tcp.inflight improves the download rate by 2MB/s! >> > How old is that CURRENT? I believe that shouldn't happen after Andre's commit back in March. > I can't see any difference toggling inflight on or off. FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT #0: Tue May 16 13:46:05 EDT 2006. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 30 12:40:51 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB8CB16A5C5; Tue, 30 May 2006 12:40:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from mh2.centtech.com (moat3.centtech.com [207.200.51.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C6E343D6B; Tue, 30 May 2006 12:40:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from [10.177.171.220] (neutrino.centtech.com [10.177.171.220]) by mh2.centtech.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k4UCeour059622; Tue, 30 May 2006 07:40:50 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Message-ID: <447C3D56.1030900@centtech.com> Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 07:40:54 -0500 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060506) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: etalk etalk References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.87.1/1499/Mon May 29 15:35:17 2006 on mh2.centtech.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: about ufs filesystem io performance! X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:41:06 -0000 etalk etalk wrote: > >> From: Eric Anderson >> To: etalk etalk >> CC: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org >> Subject: Re: about ufs filesystem io performance! >> Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 07:46:44 -0500 >> >> etalk etalk wrote: >>> 5.3 vs 6.0 The test tool is Iozone3_257, and the test command is >>> ?/iozone -A -f /mnt/tmpfile.test -g 1g -n 1m -q 8k -y 2k -R -b >>> outfile-Af.xls ?(http://www.iozone.org/src/current/). We ran all the >>> tests on the same PC with 2.4 GHz Pentium CPU and 512M main memory. >>> Figure1~Figure5 show the results of the file system performance >>> comparison between Bsd5.3抯 UFS2 and Bsd6.0抯 UFS2 when testing with >>> different file system (local, sync, async, softupdate, sync+softupdate). >>> According to the figures, our conclusion is: On all kinds of file >>> systems, the write, rewrite, read and reread performance of the two >>> is almost same and we cant say that Bsd6.0 make a improvement on file >>> system IO performance. >>> http://blog.csdn.net/minerboyIo/Gallery/204114.aspx >>> linux2.6.11 vs bsd 5.3 The test tool is Iozone3_257, and the test >>> command is ?/iozone -A -f /mnt/tmpfile.test -g 1g -n 4m -q 8k -y 2k >>> -R -b outfile-Af.xls ?(http://www.iozone.org/src/current/). We ran >>> all the tests on the same PC with 2.4 GHz Pentium CPU and 512M main >>> memory, Figure1, Figure2, Figure3 show the results of the file system >>> performance comparison between Bsd抯 UFS2 and Linux?Ext3 (the Linux >>> kernel version is 2.6.11, and the Bsd kernel version is 5.3) when >>> testing with sync, async and local (Bsd using softupdate) file >>> system. According to the figures, our conclusion is: a.On local file >>> system and async file system, Fedora4抯 write and rewrite is much >>> faster than Bsd5.3抯 (about 5-10 times). b.On all kinds of file >>> systems, the read and reread performance of FreeBsd5.3 is about >>> 50%-90% lower than that of Fedora4. c.On sync file system, Bsd5.3 >>> writes several times faster than Fedora4 does and rewrites over two >>> hundred times faster than Fedora4 does. >>> http://blog.csdn.net/minerboyIo/Gallery/204107.aspx >> >> You don't report the type of disks you are using, or anything about >> the storage. For the first test, I'd think that it's possible that >> you were hitting hardware performance bottlenecks before actually >> testing the filesystem performance. >> >> Also, what are the 2,4,8 numbers referencing? How many times did you >> run the tests? >> >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology >> Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Thanks for your reply! > My disk is Maxtor 2F040L0 with 40GB capacity , 5400 rpm and <12ms ave > seek time, and the 2,4,8 is the block size when doing the writes and > reads, We do the tests two times,and the results is same,One of the > results is in the attachment! > > According to the conclusions,our puzzles is : > > a. Why the write and rewrite performance of FreeBsd5.3 is so lower > than that of Fedora4 in async system or in local system? Can we improve > the performace by tuning the FreeBsd5.3's kernel or by making some > modifition to the kernel of FreeBsd5.3 in the file vfs_bio.c? > > b. Is Bsd6.0 make improvement in file system io performance when > comparing to Bsd5.3? > > I am eager to have your reply! > > > Best Regards > > etalk I'm no expert, but the drive you used is (in my opinion) insufficient to fully test filesystem's. You really need to remove as much hardware from the bottleneck path as possible. Preferably using something like a Gigabyte i-Ram device, or possibly memory disks. FreeBSD 6.1+ has many many filesystem improvements, so I would highly suggest re-running the benchmarks on that, and also on the newer 2.6 Linux kernels. I also suggest more than 2 runs - something like 5-7 would be a good start I think. You might also do some tests on very large (100Tb or bigger) and very small (30mb or smaller) filesystem sizes. Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 1 15:22:42 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 611F616C26F for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2006 15:22:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from trashy_bumper@yahoo.com) Received: from web36304.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web36304.mail.mud.yahoo.com [209.191.84.234]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AF01843D48 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2006 15:22:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from trashy_bumper@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 45833 invoked by uid 60001); 1 Jun 2006 15:22:41 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=L3b7zXqxJZ7+6a1FRMK0ai8uCnoD9a65gSaRCSRlY/sTLLgL+L+eTtYMaYuL4w0D3NUCSc/SdyWQMi1yuOGUidAloyhoFAmjB1h/ivLZZLfDnNifurmGPtsuZBYovwXaazS5aWfPyWk2cnfxxCKAZ0TWdoULWbi7y0mWYJEwyCA= ; Message-ID: <20060601152241.45831.qmail@web36304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [213.227.206.11] by web36304.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 08:22:41 PDT Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 08:22:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Nash Nipples To: Mike Jakubik In-Reply-To: <1083.172.16.0.199.1148950758.squirrel@172.16.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Poor Samba throughput on 6.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:22:44 -0000 Hi Guys! I just cant sleep till i make this thing clear. We have a 10/100 Mb/s NIC which transmits 33 000 000 Hz x 32 Bytes width = 132 MB/s over PCI 2.2 But how do you guys count 12.5 MB/s in the cable when the NIC has lets say realtek 8139 25 MHz external clock. and 4 cables to transmit bi-directional data that is only TX+ TX- RX+ RX- which is only 2 bits long at a time so 25 MHz x 2 = 6.25 MB/s for 4 wires and 25 MHz x 4 = 12.5 MB/s for 8 wires. and how do you get 25 MB/s on a 1G link when the clock is still 25 MHz? Thank you, Nash Mike Jakubik wrote: On Mon, May 29, 2006 8:10 pm, Joao Barros wrote: > On 5/27/06, Mike Jakubik wrote: >> I am using -CURRENT here, disabling net.inet.tcp.inflight improves the download rate by 2MB/s! >> > How old is that CURRENT? I believe that shouldn't happen after Andre's commit back in March. > I can't see any difference toggling inflight on or off. FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT #0: Tue May 16 13:46:05 EDT 2006. _______________________________________________ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.