From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 28 22:50:30 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2F03106566B for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:50:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=1522171aa5=killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from mail1.multiplay.co.uk (mail1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4258FC08 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:50:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=multiplay.co.uk; s=Multiplay; t=1254177578; x=1254782378; q=dns/txt; h=Received: Message-ID:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; bh=odeBS3LCEu+qNBz1R1GcMp+TaTvpcgExVV awzI5gdbg=; b=QmxU7JVu1x7BhJW93m9oU1ufDqiu4WXpoNMlx/yApREDdOn204 6QW/1KRe0dk+259XxXnMNeFAyNjv1YX9tRm1onDQiFP1Ziz+VynQrunPJ+YAbcHk NakwDV0O24WifFkXSc7sj028N3LfrIJwghX3PnyjOZoveIqfJwKjFKvZg= X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.multiplay.co.uk, Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:39:38 +0100 Received: from r2d2 by mail1.multiplay.co.uk (MDaemon PRO v10.0.4) with ESMTP id md50008280854.msg for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:39:36 +0100 X-Spam-Processed: mail1.multiplay.co.uk, Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:39:36 +0100 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-Authenticated-Sender: Killing@multiplay.co.uk X-MDRemoteIP: 213.123.247.160 X-Return-Path: prvs=1522171aa5=killing@multiplay.co.uk X-Envelope-From: killing@multiplay.co.uk X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Message-ID: From: "Steven Hartland" To: Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:39:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 Subject: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... 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: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:50:31 -0000 Just noticed the following posted on phoronix: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd8_ubuntu910&num=1 Comments? Regards Steve ================================================ This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 28 23:16:01 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE4C1065672 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:16:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from francisco.cabrita@gmail.com) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.248]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17AFB8FC26 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:16:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d14so1716152and.13 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:16:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=PC961t8RE4T+sPZtEFulnQGLG8oNAUpXSqn6L9df4lQ=; b=ltRnD5VtmRi/CXQGnYP8IiK18jKags3rEKVX1nUlt22D6j0CSPOIoFc/4ou68b/xVb Zl/fTL9XyC+S/B9IFsywukBwU3sZSkP+0e4NWyyxrsryWKLedVSTqfXPvN2mW+qrkMCA o/eSd3a5QwizZLUgQBsRzd9n3TlIZc7FX76YQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=TELFo3/kZyinrpxAB7NtZsAu+fTCIGe3VI3FfT4XKywKK55mr1nDlfi2yr014BjFAg dGWVv5B20eWN05A5v85BK8jQMnSQ7r1gPnm+kcz2CWHOg31clXIAGp3kmye7B4W1/aTl S/g75DB03iKQV1soItlVgnxBau8GowdKp0d+o= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.52.2 with SMTP id z2mr3630551anz.136.1254178350324; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:52:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Francisco Cabrita Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:52:10 +0100 Message-ID: To: Steven Hartland Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... 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: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:16:01 -0000 On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Steven Hartland wrote: > Just noticed the following posted on phoronix: > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd8_ubuntu910&num=1 > > Comments? > > I didn't saw anything related to turning off witness and invariants... so... Regards, Francisco > Regards > Steve > > > ================================================ > This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the > person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the > recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise > disseminating it or any information contained in it. > In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please > telephone +44 845 868 1337 > or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk. > > _______________________________________________ > 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" > -- blog: http://sufixo.com/raw http://www.linkedin.com/in/franciscocabrita From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 29 00:04:07 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27C74106566B for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:04:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@stringsutils.com) Received: from zoraida.natserv.net (p65-147.acedsl.com [66.114.65.147]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE7BF8FC08 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:04:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zoraida.natserv.net (zoraida.natserv.net [66.114.65.147]) by zoraida.natserv.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D41891704F; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:46:53 -0400 (EDT) References: Message-ID: X-Mailer: http://www.courier-mta.org/cone/ From: Francisco Reyes To: Steven Hartland Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:46:53 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... 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, 29 Sep 2009 00:04:07 -0000 Steven Hartland writes: > Just noticed the following posted on phoronix: > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd8_ubuntu910&num=1 > Comments? This was discussed in detail in slashdot.. starting with the fact that most likely debug switches were not turned off for FreeBSD. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 29 00:29:34 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFEC71065676 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:29:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from leccine@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bw0-f227.google.com (mail-bw0-f227.google.com [209.85.218.227]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 714EE8FC12 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:29:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz27 with SMTP id 27so3564511bwz.43 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:29:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=4lIhG/uXWwrwyk4HCekD3d+Ixm2E6Kujr3Ksdx4iLMc=; b=x8M96LrdeFNtCEdu5awKwC5Wh3PZ1Cq0tjwafgDaExbuQAFgm5gp8KUr9BZ4C7Oce4 f+2NNM5q5sJaFyJzt+8tuaXvbMkS58+41KERMLEHcyoKR4RwoBY0KkENnpZXWINNFyLE mIYqA5olezQW6PO+FbtsCkzgV92ckeXk8sF4E= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=eUwc9h5ES3r6xpoHe1LsR7DTuMS47E6C+XBqPoU7bXQ2eFkcqfnSIhsM3OMigEvcES ny6ee5/CXE9ZXRNiEltaxiAAypKRZa1f/so0UFmnwMJ/8M3QMNrSy7g0pQ4sTzrSgQpx luFP/n6y/biuhQdfcJpgguiwC70HMSlAtcQIw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.8.13 with SMTP id f13mr3481548bkf.150.1254184171842; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:29:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:29:31 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?B?SXN0duFu?= To: Francisco Reyes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Steven Hartland Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... 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, 29 Sep 2009 00:29:34 -0000 http://marc.info/?l=freebsd-current&m=125413848303229&w=2 On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Francisco Reyes wrote: > Steven Hartland writes: > > Just noticed the following posted on phoronix: >> >> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd8_ubuntu910&num=1 >> Comments? >> > > This was discussed in detail in slashdot.. starting with the fact that most > likely debug switches were not turned off for FreeBSD. > _______________________________________________ > 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" > -- the sun shines for all From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 29 04:07:50 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C3A01065672 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:07:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@sopwith.solgatos.com) Received: from sopwith.solgatos.com (pool-173-50-131-36.ptldor.fios.verizon.net [173.50.131.36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DB1A8FC17 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:07:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by sopwith.solgatos.com (Postfix, from userid 66) id 8F1DBB64F; Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost by sopwith.solgatos.com (8.8.8/6.24) id CAA28246; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:26:34 GMT Message-Id: <200909290226.CAA28246@sopwith.solgatos.com> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:46:53 EDT." Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:26:34 PDT From: Dieter Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... 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, 29 Sep 2009 04:07:50 -0000 In message , Francisco Reyes writes: > Steven Hartland writes: > > > Just noticed the following posted on phoronix: > > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd8_ubuntu910&num=1 > > Comments? > > This was discussed in detail in slashdot.. starting with the fact that most > likely debug switches were not turned off for FreeBSD. "All of the FreeBSD and Ubuntu options were left at their defaults." My question is why is FreeBSD's disk i/o performance so bad? Not just in the benchmarks with debugging on, but in real world usage where it actually matters. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 29 08:51:42 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61F2D106568D for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:51:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from francisco.cabrita@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yx0-f171.google.com (mail-yx0-f171.google.com [209.85.210.171]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 113028FC16 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:51:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yxe1 with SMTP id 1so6080321yxe.3 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:51:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=gCNNrl740L0Ckq4f2D7DrSrquCu9eP9fSmuaHypUM8Q=; b=d8QsftUZPtWpWpmi8DNkihydKiBcHXOgwkgeAsxOhnIoMCtc4e2OumHlWCOcM5w4ZZ Ug8y46kfkXyTTQFKdZwBR5DUF6dfKkIZyhjSacYYAUjAVOyWoqvUqO3ZR+NEafaYZbPj 3J6CQaBgxtD95LyD52X/QlVDT19CqjUbqjZcA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=LdLSesCiALUfD6+JerHvVhy8lEnoq0RE/jux8tuKNfi22iTi8EmQm/rDZAduXI10bu H13C7STKJiHmi8a97ujWldP79yzx3jTispHJcLOEnpbTkxS7rXPuOB5Zfe2hELhHIrgA I+DkNBvncZyEwz+ahPL5hbB8BCji6Tf0Lwb9o= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.101.203.6 with SMTP id f6mr4250648anq.172.1254214301159; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:51:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Francisco Cabrita Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:51:21 +0100 Message-ID: To: =?ISO-8859-1?B?SXN0duFu?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Steven Hartland , Francisco Reyes Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... 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, 29 Sep 2009 08:51:42 -0000 On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Istv=E1n wrote: > http://marc.info/?l=3Dfreebsd-current&m=3D125413848303229&w=3D2 > > well I didn't knew that fresh one. Nice to know. Gona test for RC too. > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Francisco Reyes >wrote: > > > Steven Hartland writes: > > > > Just noticed the following posted on phoronix: > >> > >> > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=3Darticle&item=3Dfreebsd8_ubuntu910= &num=3D1 > >> Comments? > >> > > > > This was discussed in detail in slashdot.. starting with the fact that > most > > likely debug switches were not turned off for FreeBSD. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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" > > > > > > -- > the sun shines for all > _______________________________________________ > 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" > --=20 blog: http://sufixo.com/raw http://www.linkedin.com/in/franciscocabrita From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 29 08:07:00 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28B6E1065670 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:07:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vilmos.gyorgy@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ew0-f209.google.com (mail-ew0-f209.google.com [209.85.219.209]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2BAA8FC1B for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:06:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy5 with SMTP id 5so3763607ewy.36 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:06:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=BgRyWR9vVnVOGpoXyOldunxOfzNx+T03juNKwMjF0ZQ=; b=SqiBZslFuPWJrG/XGL0lo3bSIYMdqCZRb3vq7Mf9E4c9AC39Tm0trnz/QGe+t0B2ff 2CpQtrP+QQq7Z56Oh1lukerGvhBNRuayz3LR8Dt8TU25S0s//OzkuJJBEMX9pcATrevb tlYc+urK4csNV0Tk+iHl+R/i+46OLdbba2VpM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=i6HhMaYyxgjUv5ppmYs0zxjNpnWSwvcz0rhzbit5uBSNiWPwqu1j72jO+FEcFUKlfv I3eEN8sE4NwQgeBrOvelxw6hhAK3XheaJ0PtFmYEdcTK7EVBi4KJy0d2lQwkcImvzmPi zXGfXt/WTOQktnfRmEYURWXUi+QB5gM/Qk4sc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.21.206 with SMTP id r56mr982066wer.186.1254210029603; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:40:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:40:29 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gy=F6rgy_Vilmos?= To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:24:55 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: Performance evaluation of PostgreSQL's historic releases 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, 29 Sep 2009 08:07:00 -0000 Hi, I've done a benchmark of recent versions of PostgreSQL's last five major releases to see how performance has changed during the past years from version to version. You can find the article here: http://suckit.blog.hu/2009/09/26/postgresql_history The tests were conducted on FreeBSD 8/amd64 on a midrange x86 server (4 CPUs, 24 cores, 128GiB RAM). -- http://suckit.blog.hu/ From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 29 15:38:02 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4389D106566B for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:38:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asmrookie@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bw0-f227.google.com (mail-bw0-f227.google.com [209.85.218.227]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD9E58FC13 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:38:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz27 with SMTP id 27so3970971bwz.43 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:38:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=q0PEPYqEkJSucuW1v6Ns+sdOnkBCQRqiPi1F/m57lHE=; b=mku0lHif+40IDwR5+LQUBTtVdE4zSRCd9AzflsvQ5mQaaQQS7cVRB90SI1h8T7QJG6 47Np/I1fkaiDdo/nI5g+VZQhPLpZzjezeSW3O0yP8DwWlnUTXp+9v2dI0xOKyPm0SpuF XND/UgvE2eEnrmsPu0Ij3H12QXHAtMDplndsw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=QcYIjoAZV2cP1cHJ1vCqcouJlB3P6W7dlaLuPPYVnep0GBYL/nAcbpI4SfO6F/Flak fLUL6uEe+fjcXCgeBYRDFEn7hmXKzU6PsnHNYHbsZKj8Vd7Lz7NnNQuJGV3yeLxnNeU2 nsYLj5U1YIV9qYwHeCTnfv+TTYklfFX0cQ50U= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: asmrookie@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.144.207 with SMTP id a15mr1233088fav.63.1254237112841; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:11:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:11:52 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: db236243fb2a6cf3 Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10909290811p6ac49f7fxaf7e7d4bf631da4c@mail.gmail.com> From: Attilio Rao To: =?UTF-8?Q?Gy=C3=B6rgy_Vilmos?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance evaluation of PostgreSQL's historic releases 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, 29 Sep 2009 15:38:02 -0000 2009/9/29 Gy=C3=B6rgy Vilmos : > Hi, > > I've done a benchmark of recent versions of PostgreSQL's last five major > releases to see how performance has changed during the past years from > version to version. > You can find the article here: > http://suckit.blog.hu/2009/09/26/postgresql_history > > The tests were conducted on FreeBSD 8/amd64 on a midrange x86 server (4 > CPUs, 24 cores, 128GiB RAM). Do you have informations about the systime when doing such tests? Attilio --=20 Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 29 16:50:36 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D54CE1065672 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:50:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@stringsutils.com) Received: from zoraida.natserv.net (p65-147.acedsl.com [66.114.65.147]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A66138FC12 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:50:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zoraida.natserv.net (zoraida.natserv.net [66.114.65.147]) by zoraida.natserv.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1306117050; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:50:36 -0400 (EDT) References: Message-ID: X-Mailer: http://www.courier-mta.org/cone/ From: Francisco Reyes To: =?ISO-8859-1?B?R3k/cmd5?= Vilmos Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:50:35 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance evaluation of PostgreSQL's historic releases 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, 29 Sep 2009 16:50:36 -0000 György Vilmos writes: > I've done a benchmark of recent versions of PostgreSQL's last five major > releases to see how performance has changed during the past years from > version to version. Thanks! Very interesting. Did you share it with the Postgresql list yet? I think they would find it very interesting. Any plans on doing simmilar tests with data that does not fit in memory? Also could you share what settings were used for postgres? Where any defaults changed? Effective memory, shared_buffers, etc... any of them adjusted for the machine's memory? From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 29 18:20:51 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30CCC1065672 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:20:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from a.kuriger@liquidphlux.com) Received: from mail.liquidphlux.com (mail.liquidphlux.com [209.98.210.169]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE18F8FC21 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:20:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.liquidphlux.com (Postfix, from userid 80) id 562234EBFC7; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:02:19 -0500 (CDT) To: Dieter MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:02:19 -0500 From: Andrew Kuriger In-Reply-To: <200909290226.CAA28246@sopwith.solgatos.com> References: <200909290226.CAA28246@sopwith.solgatos.com> Message-ID: <689d500ec8c95542a53440b8a23ae773@mail.liquidphlux.com> X-Sender: a.kuriger@liquidphlux.com User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.3-stable Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... 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, 29 Sep 2009 18:20:51 -0000 On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:26:34 PDT, Dieter wrote: > In message , > Francisco Reyes writes: >> Steven Hartland writes: >> >> > Just noticed the following posted on phoronix: >> > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd8_ubuntu910&num=1 >> > Comments? >> >> This was discussed in detail in slashdot.. starting with the fact that >> most >> likely debug switches were not turned off for FreeBSD. > > "All of the FreeBSD and Ubuntu options were left at their defaults." > > My question is why is FreeBSD's disk i/o performance so bad? > Not just in the benchmarks with debugging on, but in real world usage > where it actually matters. > _______________________________________________ > 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" Well for one if we look at /usr/src/UPDATING "NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT FreeBSD 8.x IS SLOW: FreeBSD 8.x has many debugging features turned on, in both the kernel and userland. These features attempt to detect incorrect use of system primitives, and encourage loud failure through extra sanity checking and fail stop semantics. They also substantially impact system performance. If you want to do performance measurement, benchmarking, and optimization, you'll want to turn them off. This includes various WITNESS- related kernel options, INVARIANTS, malloc debugging flags in userland, and various verbose features in the kernel. Many developers choose to disable these features on build machines to maximize performance. (To disable malloc debugging, run ln -s aj /etc/malloc.conf.)" Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I think this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to read the documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which is available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame benchmark. ~Andrew -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 29 19:03:00 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4876C106566B for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:03:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from schulra@earlham.edu) Received: from chibanda.earlham.edu (chibanda.earlham.edu [159.28.1.168]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1910A8FC15 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:02:59 +0000 (UTC) X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1254249841-072c1ba20001-3XdwJY Received: from karat.earlham.edu (karat.earlham.edu [159.28.1.86]) by chibanda.earlham.edu with ESMTP id FphBTaJBPlTa5doC for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:44:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: schulra@earlham.edu Received: from shee.earlham.edu (shee.earlham.edu [159.28.1.173]) by karat.earlham.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 817521065885 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:44:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shee.earlham.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by shee.earlham.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61D2F10A804F for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:44:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:44:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Randy Schultz To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Message-ID: <458792029.144491254249841202.JavaMail.root@shee.earlham.edu> In-Reply-To: <689d500ec8c95542a53440b8a23ae773@mail.liquidphlux.com> X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [159.28.7.130] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.0_GA_1802.RHEL5_64 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 ([unknown])/6.0.0_GA_1802.RHEL5_64) X-Barracuda-Connect: karat.earlham.edu[159.28.1.86] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1254249841 X-Barracuda-URL: http://159.28.1.168:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at earlham.edu Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... 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, 29 Sep 2009 19:03:00 -0000 ----- "Andrew Kuriger" spaketh thusly: | | Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I | think | this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to | read the | documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which | is | available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame | benchmark. Hrm. IMHO, this benchmark actually tells us something interesting. It tells us that with the anchor thrown overboard, freebsd is nearly as fast as linux. -- Randy (schulra@earlham.edu) 765.983.1283 <*> The penguin cometh From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 29 19:06:10 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19F701065679 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:06:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from francisco.cabrita@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yx0-f171.google.com (mail-yx0-f171.google.com [209.85.210.171]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C18EB8FC0A for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:06:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yxe1 with SMTP id 1so6474984yxe.3 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:06:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=aWBCkyCg1ZyYLGgg39dAictujXgf5MhS6bUAWAE5j8U=; b=rWtabIQiZHpiTw6vm9JsncmVSQQLX1r/hM2sDKqMeQ8BpunlgNgtlGIhnljT9fvEgs KEu9Qb9EzIiDxVLwGrQyyY9gXua3cdl9/gNDu5mqvPcUsgZjnH3PgFg+cqfFUVSQvcQi 8iWBwLpLWEk4lnv84GfJ/q3E4gh2PqBE0X7oo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=MgWnFXFwSgnzwXhVx6VIxZO4T4De6zI+07lI1wLe5OkALHs/UhX2qw6TrIg/BDgn66 PygSA1XTmNG9o9CG53tzmhhSmEEIfvulaGyh6AMVttygKPFZUR19NTLInKL8vdyz+Zod DOif3eTNgqI9OH++nP/5t6N8P0aiCOQONxVh4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.50.30 with SMTP id x30mr5003933anx.169.1254251169100; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:06:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <458792029.144491254249841202.JavaMail.root@shee.earlham.edu> References: <689d500ec8c95542a53440b8a23ae773@mail.liquidphlux.com> <458792029.144491254249841202.JavaMail.root@shee.earlham.edu> From: Francisco Cabrita Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:05:49 +0100 Message-ID: To: Randy Schultz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... 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, 29 Sep 2009 19:06:10 -0000 On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Randy Schultz wrote: > > ----- "Andrew Kuriger" spaketh thusly: > > | > | Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I > | think > | this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to > | read the > | documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which > | is > | available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame > | benchmark. > > > Hrm. IMHO, this benchmark actually tells us something interesting. It > tells us > that with the anchor thrown overboard, freebsd is nearly as fast as linux. > > mega lol :) > -- > > Randy (schulra@earlham.edu) 765.983.1283 <*> > > The penguin cometh > > _______________________________________________ > 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" > -- blog: http://sufixo.com/raw http://www.linkedin.com/in/franciscocabrita From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 29 19:09:57 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A92010656AE for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:09:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asmrookie@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f222.google.com (mail-fx0-f222.google.com [209.85.220.222]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C02308FC3F for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:09:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm22 with SMTP id 22so1195400fxm.36 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:09:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=7cJkK1200fL4UB11wVyWzJp1uoa2WOKCdEXgoxujRa4=; b=tlL2xv1+NEN+Vt+ckgiKYt+58uBVv1kyMF9AHQaOi7ykklON7aHSBHcM1X5qQD72NY RXx6xD5ooTaIkNYmaRo7m/rjjMGvUm4L4fyuUIUjVby1pc5lXtB7G05dx/WanLOhb2cQ DIKxh6/HQU0Hnir7id39cvdVV1178IU8C6LKM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=cP+tGYDoWEWjJJUw9Of4CRhKhmH36Yy+3X1oTooRGCO7oHzV70Lrf+ngsBh2SoGTwf yQ3MeMUU+++mjv4Q4C2q4GUiTziPiFlt6Bedx7tJRDJT55j+C6+sXzEXpAUkMhSj4Yxk 5LbgdgZapyr+CashcDWVFwUG6ImiyjLfRdHoo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: asmrookie@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.76.65 with SMTP id b1mr1279588fak.44.1254251395157; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:09:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <458792029.144491254249841202.JavaMail.root@shee.earlham.edu> References: <689d500ec8c95542a53440b8a23ae773@mail.liquidphlux.com> <458792029.144491254249841202.JavaMail.root@shee.earlham.edu> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:09:55 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 525ea4ffc3877c0e Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10909291209h3c2b1c57se68e6030c2a5a044@mail.gmail.com> From: Attilio Rao To: Randy Schultz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... 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, 29 Sep 2009 19:09:57 -0000 2009/9/29 Randy Schultz : > > ----- "Andrew Kuriger" spaketh thusly: > > | > | Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I > | think > | this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to > | read the > | documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which > | is > | available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame > | benchmark. > > > Hrm. IMHO, this benchmark actually tells us something interesting. It tells us > that with the anchor thrown overboard, freebsd is nearly as fast as linux. I don't think this is the case. The tester claims to be using FreeBSD-RC1 which has all the mentioned debugging options off. And yes, we should adjust UPDATING in order to remove the (now) misleading writing about the debugging options. I think that the most interesting opionion these benchmarks tell is that we are slow on random, threaded I/O operations. I think we need to investigate more in this direction. Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 29 19:34:13 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158E1106566C for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:34:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from leccine@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bw0-f210.google.com (mail-bw0-f210.google.com [209.85.218.210]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63AB48FC1E for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:34:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz6 with SMTP id 6so2283661bwz.37 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:34:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=KLeucKE5M/PG2yYzDCDDazTexwxdLvkwMVQaXwOmeiU=; b=e+tcSGp195eiPjTdB2TZdLSHqMXQmHeZ+kt8g5LCTxaErzv+pfR/iRWkdZp8dvAasP goevxWnkO0D6vJxkIg+KqySfkJ9Qzm1V8k+MVmicWMwWpctX11+CjGy3uxpj/n6AgDPE apw/bK94cI/cFAeLzup5W197YEjy4Xg+H8Ov4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=DcnFGcOOmVBTsU1N29mOhhkJe9hoboi5Z5ZjCoKyA1FMGjXI/v4LpaerwcogQ9Tzu8 chaM713PDh551gnIkpCp6pli4jBeZyRMJLw02usXX+ye+AuYw6tqvSrODqdG7gRajnKn cAT8OZVJYRrPgWKMLzpEN8z8ZSlk6wBtQyyoc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.32.76 with SMTP id b12mr4461716bkd.165.1254252851199; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:34:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe10909291209h3c2b1c57se68e6030c2a5a044@mail.gmail.com> References: <689d500ec8c95542a53440b8a23ae773@mail.liquidphlux.com> <458792029.144491254249841202.JavaMail.root@shee.earlham.edu> <3bbf2fe10909291209h3c2b1c57se68e6030c2a5a044@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:34:11 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?B?SXN0duFu?= To: Attilio Rao Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Randy Schultz Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... 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, 29 Sep 2009 19:34:13 -0000 With........DTrace!!@#!#@! :) I think that the most interesting opionion these benchmarks tell is > that we are slow on random, threaded I/O operations. I think we need > to investigate more in this direction. > > Attilio > > > -- > Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein > _______________________________________________ > 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" > -- the sun shines for all From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 29 19:37:19 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FD36106566B for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:37:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asmrookie@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f222.google.com (mail-fx0-f222.google.com [209.85.220.222]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10DB68FC1B for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:37:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm22 with SMTP id 22so1219090fxm.36 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:37:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fxlWA/Z2jOgmyIR1wr0jltJOLW9oF21GslDX6I0t7OQ=; b=dm1jx5owhRualARsFXcayzHlpOwfHusUbEBpG+rOLe//9xEu2JC1d0Oom0ik8VFMXw p4PAvqEqEGa5QjwHBLLyz3r/9zoTdTQANnU6RGCi6iDTnxYHEQEJ6rAIUg+DMDV4KNqn mbvgZx69eDD+SzVjHwpIRR2YyFliGpdB/yrVQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=kmkHQeaA2FzBr8FhnCSS5DIXE9wrHCrZeKExyEyTbBrOq2LRFGcEEsUj6NdUyzGiPq rRscrDlty/zDWQqWTf82pKL9wMxbeAr+XE++WBV9DXRTJCNQoPoYwoi0c46VdyuSsgfH qKUkfBKMqwERTGk8IUUPvyQyUM4yFw1qQ/gx0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: asmrookie@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.4.209 with SMTP id 17mr1459625fas.85.1254253038148; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:37:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <689d500ec8c95542a53440b8a23ae773@mail.liquidphlux.com> <458792029.144491254249841202.JavaMail.root@shee.earlham.edu> <3bbf2fe10909291209h3c2b1c57se68e6030c2a5a044@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:37:18 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2919a74d525da5b6 Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10909291237t50ac370ci71e2a32bde17bda1@mail.gmail.com> From: Attilio Rao To: =?UTF-8?Q?Istv=C3=A1n?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Randy Schultz Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... 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, 29 Sep 2009 19:37:19 -0000 2009/9/29 Istv=C3=A1n : > With........DTrace!!@#!#@! :) > > I think that the most interesting opionion these benchmarks tell is >> that we are slow on random, threaded I/O operations. I think we need >> to investigate more in this direction. First thing, it would be interesting if someone could be reproduce such (or similar) numbers in a reproducible manner, so that we can start hammering down the effort. Attilio --=20 Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 29 19:30:48 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D0DF1065676 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:30:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B09F8FC15 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:30:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1MshzT-0004ou-VC>; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:03:59 +0200 Received: from e178010082.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.178.10.82] helo=thor.walstatt.dyndns.org) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1MshzT-0007Yt-SW>; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:03:59 +0200 Message-ID: <4AC25A1F.9000405@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:03:59 +0200 From: "O. Hartmann" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090822) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Kuriger References: <200909290226.CAA28246@sopwith.solgatos.com> <689d500ec8c95542a53440b8a23ae773@mail.liquidphlux.com> In-Reply-To: <689d500ec8c95542a53440b8a23ae773@mail.liquidphlux.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: 85.178.10.82 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:15:58 +0000 Cc: Dieter , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... 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, 29 Sep 2009 19:30:48 -0000 Andrew Kuriger wrote: > On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:26:34 PDT, Dieter > wrote: >> In message , >> Francisco Reyes writes: >>> Steven Hartland writes: >>> >>>> Just noticed the following posted on phoronix: >>>> > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd8_ubuntu910&num=1 >>>> Comments? >>> This was discussed in detail in slashdot.. starting with the fact that >>> most >>> likely debug switches were not turned off for FreeBSD. >> "All of the FreeBSD and Ubuntu options were left at their defaults." >> >> My question is why is FreeBSD's disk i/o performance so bad? >> Not just in the benchmarks with debugging on, but in real world usage >> where it actually matters. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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" > > Well for one if we look at /usr/src/UPDATING > > "NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT FreeBSD 8.x IS SLOW: > FreeBSD 8.x has many debugging features turned on, in both the kernel and > userland. These features attempt to detect incorrect use of system > primitives, and encourage loud failure through extra sanity checking and > fail stop semantics. They also substantially impact system performance. If > you want to do performance measurement, benchmarking, and optimization, > you'll want to turn them off. This includes various WITNESS- related kernel > options, INVARIANTS, malloc debugging flags in userland, and various > verbose features in the kernel. Many developers choose to disable these > features on build machines to maximize performance. (To disable malloc > debugging, run ln -s aj /etc/malloc.conf.)" > > Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I think > this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to read the > documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which is > available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame benchmark. > > ~Andrew > I doubt that debugging switches left in some places a normal admin or user can't get so easy are the reason why FreeBSD 8.0-RC performs that bad compared to Ubuntu 9,1-Linux. The question at this point would be, whether debugging was enabled on Linux as well or not ... Oliver From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 29 23:38:53 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAF2F1065672 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:38:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asmrookie@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bw0-f227.google.com (mail-bw0-f227.google.com [209.85.218.227]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 447798FC08 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:38:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz27 with SMTP id 27so4287950bwz.43 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:38:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=ej4hF+OmaKgW6RxfGj1s2qjNjaGd2MdrBu2lFdC4DTM=; b=sCOFozj451IavNcW0Z947XkhL+h/RzY98DK8Wx8bcUmZ1HD0W/iO5rSHzmZoDagSm6 O/0inwPTjGnwAZpmlfG6z0nbGm8JU2P43Agf8pfs6tCuXOWR6RFfgegwzDlIgo7lN//Q dxtBUbVpCGPDARcv9rdvfKAWZxD3YmoFuw9AY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=eqXzzETf8TQOU9zh7Y59XFzPFiMkjIzzpeZWDdio+LihFFJ0oQXFoqPAYFuqWxzUvU +33tN7nRgoL0hKyfAgnByFt4rh0k6KcpZa+s/MLtlrd1e/uDmmZas4+sI7gaoAdcNLP4 GA01K+SGFRqhEh30zFrkzMVJGnOY72hhUXqXQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: asmrookie@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.143.79 with SMTP id t15mr1495502fau.6.1254267532153; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:38:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4AC2968C.6020206@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <689d500ec8c95542a53440b8a23ae773@mail.liquidphlux.com> <458792029.144491254249841202.JavaMail.root@shee.earlham.edu> <3bbf2fe10909291209h3c2b1c57se68e6030c2a5a044@mail.gmail.com> <4AC2968C.6020206@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:38:52 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: b9f4b4ef63d59cda Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10909291638o6901195sf60a4fd2e69f6215@mail.gmail.com> From: Attilio Rao To: "O. Hartmann" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Randy Schultz Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... 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, 29 Sep 2009 23:38:53 -0000 2009/9/30 O. Hartmann : > Attilio Rao wrote: >> 2009/9/29 Randy Schultz : >>> ----- "Andrew Kuriger" spaketh thusly: >>> >>> | >>> | Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I >>> | think >>> | this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to >>> | read the >>> | documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which >>> | is >>> | available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame >>> | benchmark. >>> >>> >>> Hrm. IMHO, this benchmark actually tells us something interesting. It tells us >>> that with the anchor thrown overboard, freebsd is nearly as fast as linux. >> >> I don't think this is the case. >> The tester claims to be using FreeBSD-RC1 which has all the mentioned >> debugging options off. >> And yes, we should adjust UPDATING in order to remove the (now) >> misleading writing about the debugging options. >> >> I think that the most interesting opionion these benchmarks tell is >> that we are slow on random, threaded I/O operations. I think we need >> to investigate more in this direction. >> >> Attilio >> >> > > Well, since FreeBSD 8.0 started, I realized on several boxes (doens't > matter whether SMP or UP, 2 GB or 8 GB or 16 GB) massive performance > issues when compiling, even on a 8-core box. This is not 'measured' in > hard numbers, it is the 'feeling' since we swapped to 8.0, but still > using the same setup and software environment. On boxes with X11, on > heavy disk I/O and/or heavy compiling, X11 clients sometimes stops for > 90 seconds, mouse gets jumpy etc. This is well known and well ignored, > although I'm not the only one experiencing this. What do you mean with 'well known' and 'well ignored'? Do you have pointes to such issues? Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 29 23:21:50 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27071106568B for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:21:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA2228FC17 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:21:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1Msm0y-0005h4-L6>; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:21:48 +0200 Received: from e178010082.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.178.10.82] helo=thor.walstatt.dyndns.org) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1Msm0y-0001nu-IX>; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:21:48 +0200 Message-ID: <4AC2968C.6020206@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:21:48 +0200 From: "O. Hartmann" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090822) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Attilio Rao References: <689d500ec8c95542a53440b8a23ae773@mail.liquidphlux.com> <458792029.144491254249841202.JavaMail.root@shee.earlham.edu> <3bbf2fe10909291209h3c2b1c57se68e6030c2a5a044@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe10909291209h3c2b1c57se68e6030c2a5a044@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: 85.178.10.82 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 02:06:36 +0000 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Randy Schultz Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... 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, 29 Sep 2009 23:21:50 -0000 Attilio Rao wrote: > 2009/9/29 Randy Schultz : >> ----- "Andrew Kuriger" spaketh thusly: >> >> | >> | Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I >> | think >> | this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to >> | read the >> | documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which >> | is >> | available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame >> | benchmark. >> >> >> Hrm. IMHO, this benchmark actually tells us something interesting. It tells us >> that with the anchor thrown overboard, freebsd is nearly as fast as linux. > > I don't think this is the case. > The tester claims to be using FreeBSD-RC1 which has all the mentioned > debugging options off. > And yes, we should adjust UPDATING in order to remove the (now) > misleading writing about the debugging options. > > I think that the most interesting opionion these benchmarks tell is > that we are slow on random, threaded I/O operations. I think we need > to investigate more in this direction. > > Attilio > > Well, since FreeBSD 8.0 started, I realized on several boxes (doens't matter whether SMP or UP, 2 GB or 8 GB or 16 GB) massive performance issues when compiling, even on a 8-core box. This is not 'measured' in hard numbers, it is the 'feeling' since we swapped to 8.0, but still using the same setup and software environment. On boxes with X11, on heavy disk I/O and/or heavy compiling, X11 clients sometimes stops for 90 seconds, mouse gets jumpy etc. This is well known and well ignored, although I'm not the only one experiencing this. I think this will not change soon. ZFS is, at this moment, the only thing that keeps me with FreeBSD. In every other case, serving, number crunching (oh, we need a lot of I/O performance in those number crunching environments) and even simple desktop, Linux, mostly Ubuntu and RedHat, outperforms FreeBSD. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 04:24:43 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C18F1065672 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:24:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@sopwith.solgatos.com) Received: from sopwith.solgatos.com (pool-173-50-131-36.ptldor.fios.verizon.net [173.50.131.36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29F628FC1D for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:24:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by sopwith.solgatos.com (Postfix, from userid 66) id D1C39B650; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:32:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost by sopwith.solgatos.com (8.8.8/6.24) id CAA29195; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 02:26:14 GMT Message-Id: <200909300226.CAA29195@sopwith.solgatos.com> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:42:13 EDT." Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:26:14 PDT From: Dieter Subject: A specific example of a disk i/o problem (was: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu) 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:24:43 -0000 > > My question is why is FreeBSD's disk i/o performance so bad? > > As I mentioned... this was discussed actively in slashdot. You will find > there many good comments on this. All I saw in slashdot was a ffs vs ext comment. I don't believe the problems I'm seeing are filesystem related. > > Not just in the benchmarks with debugging on, but in real world usage > > where it actually matters. > > Are you saying this from actual experience or from reading other people's > comments? Here is a specific demo of one disk i/o problem I'm seeing. Should be easy to reproduce? http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance/2008-July/003533.html This was over a year ago, so add 7.1 to the list of versions with the problem. I believe that the swap_pager: indefinite wait buffer: bufobj: 0, blkno: 1148109, size: 4096 messages I'm getting are the same problem. A user process is hogging the bottleneck (disk buffer cache?) and the swapper/pager is getting starved. I frequently see problems where disk i/o on one disk starves a process that needs disk i/o on a different disk on a different controller, which is why I suspect the disk buffer cache as the bottleneck. > If it is from actual experience and XYZ version of Linux does a > particular job better then I don't see why you should not consider using > what works best. I was stuck running Linux on one machine for awhile and it scrambled my data. No thank you. Data integrity is essential. Thankfully I have been penguin free for awhile now. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 05:31:41 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED0BF106566B for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:31:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from leccine@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f222.google.com (mail-fx0-f222.google.com [209.85.220.222]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AE188FC19 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:31:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm22 with SMTP id 22so1553059fxm.36 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:31:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=h+Nc4sI/nk7CNwNbWXPEt8GUAXI6nqYCi8vaLqx/dIk=; b=QrW2ycLzZzqW6kTFJbQZwiibzVlWp6Yl1NbeQvryFkKekJ/LeYe3mpgw1KC0kv6z6n GDjirsgvVn/RY9Rs+LO6et1rqI39v2ZswWFvT3LB/UHgzC9O2jaOypy0C3ZYnzR74YIc W9E2+vWcDUuka5h8HtbAg68BNcFtan0I7ujPE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=JKUfwR9MXcIEru6frDVrBf68fnkbvfD3T0MPHQCtCoZsw4O73fy5qTaPGnKO+DGtgY ZeGZuhxV8KhZD/0Gu9/SjFYdVjtbK68obNXQPOUP+YcGxECzBlt/j9SqQ0hKedA/ryeR RFb9b2MzXxfvXBNvqcz0hQhFkMDGKk7ZOxxjM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.3.19 with SMTP id 19mr4911235bkl.151.1254288699556; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:31:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4AC2968C.6020206@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <689d500ec8c95542a53440b8a23ae773@mail.liquidphlux.com> <458792029.144491254249841202.JavaMail.root@shee.earlham.edu> <3bbf2fe10909291209h3c2b1c57se68e6030c2a5a044@mail.gmail.com> <4AC2968C.6020206@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:31:39 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?B?SXN0duFu?= To: "O. Hartmann" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:31:41 -0000 makes no sense to stay with freebsd for zfs: http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/ I think this will not change soon. ZFS is, at this moment, the only > thing that keeps me with FreeBSD. In every other case, serving, number > crunching (oh, we need a lot of I/O performance in those number > crunching environments) and even simple desktop, Linux, mostly Ubuntu > and RedHat, outperforms FreeBSD. > _______________________________________________ > 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" > -- the sun shines for all From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 05:33:37 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6FFC106566B; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:33:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kip.macy@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yw0-f191.google.com (mail-yw0-f191.google.com [209.85.211.191]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43F958FC0A; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:33:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ywh29 with SMTP id 29so10178545ywh.7 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:33:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=FvFboe8QCvRbYiukYHeerY2LqCzwQUOcA4olp+Izleg=; b=FX2rS0l/QxswqoCovpophaQe3rKhntV/bb5rmclSFkLn68lcM3tOoSfZQcUqnXxJYT MFReuDgx0rpKIKyLAX786pS0MZWXAV80Dn8aOa2upX/k0Xv7PlCxpBb0/enqcMkRQ3pO u3/ezv96nYBi249P7Yl/HQtSg9uM32YhHTSQ4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=PDRQaMurGB2WfZh1aKFBBFDFiy0xWGGRjdEUflp/LoX4aHPGWdoqiPG3ZAgASCUV6p TZ9syZHLLXpSonfXCCXpkApokCQrWggRIm4W0S41WW+A5jKCs3PxfSeKMcByuOnCyKZA XY8Cba+/1IiYEGx/6jbrkonLdsvdBijHDIk1Q= Received: by 10.101.107.2 with SMTP id j2mr5781015anm.135.1254287568406; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:12:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.113? ([76.102.48.254]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d22sm2706414and.6.2009.09.29.22.12.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:12:47 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes From: Kip Macy In-Reply-To: <4AC2968C.6020206@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:12:44 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <689d500ec8c95542a53440b8a23ae773@mail.liquidphlux.com> <458792029.144491254249841202.JavaMail.root@shee.earlham.edu> <3bbf2fe10909291209h3c2b1c57se68e6030c2a5a044@mail.gmail.com> <4AC2968C.6020206@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> To: O. Hartmann X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076) Cc: Attilio Rao , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Randy Schultz Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:33:37 -0000 On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:21 PM, O. Hartmann wrote: > Well, since FreeBSD 8.0 started, I realized on several boxes (doens't > matter whether SMP or UP, 2 GB or 8 GB or 16 GB) massive performance > issues when compiling, even on a 8-core box. This is not 'measured' in > hard numbers, it is the 'feeling' since we swapped to 8.0, but still > crunching (oh, we need a lot of I/O performance in those number > crunching environments) and even simple desktop, Linux, mostly Ubuntu > and RedHat, outperforms FreeBSD. We certainly do periodically have performance issues, but it isn't realistic to expect us to tune for how it "feels" to you. Performance on concrete workloads would contribute a great deal more to the discussion. -Kip From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 05:37:49 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9016C106566B; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:37:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from leccine@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f222.google.com (mail-fx0-f222.google.com [209.85.220.222]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD4708FC1B; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:37:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm22 with SMTP id 22so1555367fxm.36 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:37:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=m4+GpdMAIZZ/4I7SzvZtf97c8WhOzg9rABEqqIYvptU=; b=CmgTLryOgQfogo8Jvc/QQfVWH1V0joaKMsQaCUBPd7vth5yDS/ptiSRVvx74jmJul1 SU2IMPYmb5EMFeBJv/gtaZobKQj6dRNWtsvozvDiZGpyl2vvz3TVNgcME+u6b9IhDPaT mCH4QFKoH5W/QI4idLsjlQLNeOtJupBgqtqgI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=TgMhpLmW8Fvx0/WNU2BiKjDDCPGkEXTci+LBpvzFCmYVEwhSXFwqT3K9O57bo7H/Jh eLVQDYrhe1dn/X0p21s+m2Eag0OCWotkEmtDU1V/UYLZHpTfs58XFPDqVKcVkgGBObGi rSIxtoddsWKTQKhgrsio31sCE4qnJTGI2omvM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.154.209 with SMTP id p17mr5034656bkw.104.1254289067676; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:37:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <689d500ec8c95542a53440b8a23ae773@mail.liquidphlux.com> <458792029.144491254249841202.JavaMail.root@shee.earlham.edu> <3bbf2fe10909291209h3c2b1c57se68e6030c2a5a044@mail.gmail.com> <4AC2968C.6020206@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:37:47 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?B?SXN0duFu?= To: Kip Macy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Attilio Rao , "O. Hartmann" , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Randy Schultz Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:37:49 -0000 but if we measure the performance based on feelings we could advertise freebsd: "feels better" do not forget the marketing value :)) On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Kip Macy wrote: > > On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:21 PM, O. Hartmann wrote: > >> Well, since FreeBSD 8.0 started, I realized on several boxes (doens't >> matter whether SMP or UP, 2 GB or 8 GB or 16 GB) massive performance >> issues when compiling, even on a 8-core box. This is not 'measured' in >> > > hard numbers, it is the 'feeling' since we swapped to 8.0, but still >> crunching (oh, we need a lot of I/O performance in those number >> crunching environments) and even simple desktop, Linux, mostly Ubuntu >> and RedHat, outperforms FreeBSD. >> > > > We certainly do periodically have performance issues, but it isn't > realistic to expect us to tune for how it "feels" to you. Performance on > concrete workloads would contribute a great deal more to the discussion. > > > -Kip > > _______________________________________________ > 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" > -- the sun shines for all From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 06:30:35 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD0AD1065696 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:30:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asmrookie@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f222.google.com (mail-fx0-f222.google.com [209.85.220.222]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DD0C8FC0A for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:30:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm22 with SMTP id 22so1576826fxm.36 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:30:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=wF2kj6Wc5n97dd4B4WR5PibbTfB70Gk3lMsO88WyQeU=; b=f25Cvczjif1reahWtulu4qR/xPEzV/522S/RDO1imSzQo0kePsW6uITmQh30GtzYYN vtY3s7qsW9OAJgfBBcju5TJQuTmO5WXS8JmM63l9eYACGd2qwzwtpI+N1ykBvMZyyOO6 nFTc2t9S0pXAWU6Ymv0LCMKlrkaUYUMMeG1Cc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=aAFAu/InCf3hhkahIrj5I56IHq+c5hfYKku2ovkWzaoCNJwWpZLaUhd7hEOHBkINb0 3n57/HrtltBh2IrN0QP+pfNWYBcv9lAo2ZZ6F9WS+JY2hkqqHIMBCQqEy8rTapHe9FNR RoNChZNTlzz9MA/GAKAx1VYdruSmgqGkDF0u8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: asmrookie@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.76.65 with SMTP id b1mr1396168fak.44.1254292234177; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:30:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <200909300226.CAA29195@sopwith.solgatos.com> References: <200909300226.CAA29195@sopwith.solgatos.com> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:30:34 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 66023eafc74084c1 Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10909292330t753bcad1r69ae67d7e898ee35@mail.gmail.com> From: Attilio Rao To: Dieter Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A specific example of a disk i/o problem (was: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu) 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:30:35 -0000 2009/9/30 Dieter : >> > My question is why is FreeBSD's disk i/o performance so bad? >> >> As I mentioned... this was discussed actively in slashdot. You will find >> there many good comments on this. > > All I saw in slashdot was a ffs vs ext comment. I don't believe the problems > I'm seeing are filesystem related. > >> > Not just in the benchmarks with debugging on, but in real world usage >> > where it actually matters. >> >> Are you saying this from actual experience or from reading other people's >> comments? > > Here is a specific demo of one disk i/o problem I'm seeing. Should be > easy to reproduce? > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance/2008-July/003533.html > > This was over a year ago, so add 7.1 to the list of versions with the problem. > I believe that the > swap_pager: indefinite wait buffer: bufobj: 0, blkno: 1148109, size: 4096 > messages I'm getting are the same problem. A user process is hogging > the bottleneck (disk buffer cache?) and the swapper/pager is getting starved. Sorry, do you have a PR/describing e-mail with this issue? Can you be a bit more precise? The problem reported in the earlier post, however, is interesting and worths more analysis. More speficially, would you be interested in reproducing and playing a bit with some diagnostic tool/configurations I can point you at? Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 06:28:45 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E10671065672 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:28:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lehmann@ans-netz.de) Received: from avocado.salatschuessel.net (avocado.salatschuessel.net [78.111.72.186]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 260A38FC19 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:28:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 45528 invoked by uid 89); 30 Sep 2009 06:02:02 -0000 Message-ID: <20090930060202.45527.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> From: "Oliver Lehmann" To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:02:01 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:35:28 +0000 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: (no subject) 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:28:45 -0000 Hi, I got 4 new SATA disks (WD Green, 1TB, WD10EADS) I want to use to replace my old 250GB disks attached to my 3ware controller. I want to reuse the old 250GB disks in some systems running old PATA disks ight now as system drives. So what I did now was gathering SATA performance tatistics with the new 1TB drive to just find out what would be the maximum performance I would get out of these disks to compare them later with my 3ware when they are configured as RAID-5. A colleague of mine has the same disks in a new Nvidia Atom 330 system and he told me that he reaches around 70MB/sec write speed with a single large file on a single disk running linux 2.6. I hooked the disk up to my client: FreeBSD 7.2-STABLE #0: Tue Jul 28 12:59:47 CEST 2009 CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3500+ (2200.10-MHz K8-class CPU) usable memory = 2138615808 (2039 MB) atapci0: port 0xd000-0xd007,0xc800-0xc803,0xc400-0xc407,0xc000-0xc003,0xb800-0xb80f,0xb400 -0xb4ff irq 20 at device 15.0 on pci0 ad4: 953869MB at ata2-master SATA150 because the on-board controller is a VIA 6420 I had to set the SATA150 Jumper on the harddisk to have the controller detect the drive. On FreeBSD I used gpart+gpt to create a 1TB partition and then simply ran newfs /dev/ad4p1 and mounted the new filesystem afterwards. I then ran a dd in=/dev/zero of=/mnt/tmp/test.dd bs=1M count=4069 and dd reported me a write speed of around 25MB/sec. This made me feel kinda bad so I gave bonnie++ a try. The result was: Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP kartoffel.salats 4G 548 96 28924 3 14617 2 1141 96 36869 3 199.7 2 Latency 167ms 71702us 1759ms 23957us 75351us 2286ms Version 1.96 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- kartoffel.salatschu -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 552 1 +++++ +++ 1486 2 531 1 +++++ +++ 1278 1 Latency 91403us 156us 28424us 22901us 87us 22820us 1.96,1.96,kartoffel.salatschuessel.net,1,1254282805,4G,,548,96,28924,3,14617 ,2,1141,96,36869,3,199.7,2,16,,,,,552,1,+++++,+++,1486,2,531,1,+++++,+++,127 8,1,167ms,71702us,1759ms,23957us,75351us,2286ms,91403us,156us,28424us,22901u s,87us,22820us This also did not look that good comparing to the bonnie output the colleague gave me from his shiny new ION system. I then booted the latest knoppix (Also a 2.6.whatever linux kernel), created a filesystem on /dev/sd1a (mkfs.ext3 /dev/sd1a) and mounted the filesystem as well. The same dd I ran on FreeBSD I also ran on Knoppix and this gave me 57.3MB/sec (wow compared to 25MB/sec). I then also started bonnie++ just to see that this one is also much better: Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP Microknoppix 4G 305 99 55905 18 31896 9 959 98 80414 10 211.7 3 Latency 28579us 1075ms 1046ms 26376us 20962us 272ms Version 1.96 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- Microknoppix -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 27135 59 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 29369 62 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ Latency 23535us 9969us 9927us 11680us 1182us 9985us 1.96,1.96,Microknoppix,1,1254262392,4G,,305,99,55905,18,31896,9,959,98,80414 ,10,211.7,3,16,,,,,27135,59,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,29369,62,+++++,+++,+++++,+++ ,28579us,1075ms,1046ms,26376us,20962us,272ms,23535us,9969us,9927us,11680us,1 182us,9985us Does anyone know if there is something I can tune on FreeBSD to get more speed? hw.ata.wc is enabled of course. hw.ata.wc: 1 hw.ata.atapi_dma: 1 hw.ata.ata_dma_check_80pin: 1 hw.ata.ata_dma: 1 I'll retest both setups with a plugged in Promise SATA300 PCI controller but I doubt that it will get faster. I tried the controller before, and on an dual PIII-850 system with L440GX chipset and 2GB of RAM the controller gave me around 40MB/sec on write and on my amd64 system I also only got around 25MB/sec (even this makes no sense to me why my old PIII is faster then my much newer amd64) but I'll come back with better numbers for this controller later. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 07:34:48 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A8911065679 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:34:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from doconnor@gsoft.com.au) Received: from cain.gsoft.com.au (cain.gsoft.com.au [203.31.81.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA17D8FC12 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:34:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inchoate.gsoft.com.au (inchoate.gsoft.com.au [203.31.81.30]) (authenticated bits=0) by cain.gsoft.com.au (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n8U7GaUe045344 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:46:37 +0930 (CST) (envelope-from doconnor@gsoft.com.au) From: "Daniel O'Connor" To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:46:32 +0930 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <20090930060202.45527.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> In-Reply-To: <20090930060202.45527.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1804273.9tfxWlXUQS"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200909301646.35019.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> X-Spam-Score: -3.977 () ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.63 on 203.31.81.10 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:35:43 +0000 Cc: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.org, Oliver Lehmann Subject: Re: (no subject) 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:34:48 -0000 --nextPart1804273.9tfxWlXUQS Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Oliver Lehmann wrote: > A colleague of mine has the same disks in a new Nvidia Atom 330 > system and he told me that he reaches around 70MB/sec write speed > with a single large file on a single disk running linux 2.6. > > I hooked the disk up to my client: > > FreeBSD 7.2-STABLE #0: Tue Jul 28 12:59:47 CEST 2009 > CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3500+ (2200.10-MHz K8-class CPU) > usable memory =3D 2138615808 (2039 MB) > atapci0: port > 0xd000-0xd007,0xc800-0xc803,0xc400-0xc407,0xc000-0xc003,0xb800-0xb80f >,0xb400 -0xb4ff irq 20 at device 15.0 on pci0 > ad4: 953869MB at ata2-master SATA150 > > because the on-board controller is a VIA 6420 I had to set the > SATA150 Jumper on the harddisk to have the controller detect the > drive. I found I was getting timeouts with this controller and exactly those=20 drives even with the SATA150 jumper connected. In the end I got a PCI Silicon Image 3114 based controller and it worked=20 fine. That said I gave up on the hardware as I couldn't get the motherboard to=20 boot off the CF/IDE adapter so I got an AMD SB700 based board which=20 works well (fingers crossed :) I didn't do any stand alone drive performance tests though. =2D-=20 Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C --nextPart1804273.9tfxWlXUQS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBKwwXS5ZPcIHs/zowRAoA1AKCD0xKQmis2caFdrd/NU8LFz0aqsACfYN1s G6bdsvVLat8mRZPUOEEDMto= =dRku -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1804273.9tfxWlXUQS-- From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 07:53:59 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3EB7106566B for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:53:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lehmann@ans-netz.de) Received: from avocado.salatschuessel.net (avocado.salatschuessel.net [78.111.72.186]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 066B08FC13 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:53:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 49915 invoked by uid 89); 30 Sep 2009 07:53:57 -0000 Message-ID: <20090930075357.49914.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> References: <20090930060202.45527.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <200909301646.35019.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> In-Reply-To: <200909301646.35019.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> From: "Oliver Lehmann" To: "Daniel O'Connor" Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:53:57 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:35:52 +0000 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SATA is to slow comparing with linux 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:53:59 -0000 Daniel O'Connor writes: > In the end I got a PCI Silicon Image 3114 based controller and it worked > fine. I thought about getting a controller with a SiL-Chil too because they are kinda cheap and another system I intend to use with SATA harddisks has no SATA on-board. But then I searched through the web and read many posts telling me "stay away from Silicon Image controllers" so I did as advised.... I got a Promise SATA300 TX2plus instead. I'll rune some tests with later (when I'm back home ;)) From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 10:19:13 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED4451065676 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:19:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rnoland@FreeBSD.org) Received: from gizmo.2hip.net (gizmo.2hip.net [64.74.207.195]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C6D8FC1C for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:19:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (adsl-156-4-144.bna.bellsouth.net [70.156.4.144]) (authenticated bits=0) by gizmo.2hip.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n8U9uuaR084281 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:56:59 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from rnoland@FreeBSD.org) From: Robert Noland To: Oliver Lehmann In-Reply-To: <20090930075357.49914.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> References: <20090930060202.45527.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <200909301646.35019.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20090930075357.49914.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: FreeBSD Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:56:51 -0500 Message-Id: <1254304611.2268.962.camel@balrog.2hip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_DYNAMIC, SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on gizmo.2hip.net X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:36:25 +0000 Cc: Daniel O'Connor , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SATA is to slow comparing with linux 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:19:14 -0000 On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 09:53 +0200, Oliver Lehmann wrote: > Daniel O'Connor writes: > > > In the end I got a PCI Silicon Image 3114 based controller and it worked > > fine. > > I thought about getting a controller with a SiL-Chil too because they are > kinda cheap and another system I intend to use with SATA harddisks has no > SATA on-board. But then I searched through the web and read many posts > telling me "stay away from Silicon Image controllers" so I did as > advised.... > > I got a Promise SATA300 TX2plus instead. I'll rune some tests with later > (when I'm back home ;)) I would also be curious how that ahci driver from -CURRENT is performing relative to other implementations. robert. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- Robert Noland FreeBSD From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 11:17:37 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F402710656A3 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:17:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lehmann@ans-netz.de) Received: from avocado.salatschuessel.net (avocado.salatschuessel.net [78.111.72.186]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4CF018FC1F for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:17:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 58107 invoked by uid 89); 30 Sep 2009 11:17:34 -0000 Message-ID: <20090930111734.58106.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> References: <20090930060202.45527.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <200909301646.35019.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20090930075357.49914.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <1254304611.2268.962.camel@balrog.2hip.net> In-Reply-To: <1254304611.2268.962.camel@balrog.2hip.net> From: "Oliver Lehmann" To: Robert Noland Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:17:34 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:36:32 +0000 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SATA is to slow comparing with linux 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:17:37 -0000 Robert Noland writes: > On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 09:53 +0200, Oliver Lehmann wrote: >> I got a Promise SATA300 TX2plus instead. I'll rune some tests with later >> (when I'm back home ;)) > > I would also be curious how that ahci driver from -CURRENT is performing > relative to other implementations. So there is a new driver - never heard about ahci ;) Is it sufficient to boot 8.0-RC1 livefs? It looks like ahci is not included in GENERIC so I have to load the module in the 2nd bootloader I guess. Something else like disabling the old ata driver? Or will the new driver be used automatically. I was not sure about the man page what "this one" means (the ataahci or the ahaci?): AHCI hardware is also supported by ataahci driver from ata(4) subsystem. If both drivers are loaded at the same time, this one will be given precedence as the more functional of the two. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 11:23:39 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C6C31065692; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:23:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rnoland@FreeBSD.org) Received: from gizmo.2hip.net (gizmo.2hip.net [64.74.207.195]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45B438FC14; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:23:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (adsl-156-4-144.bna.bellsouth.net [70.156.4.144]) (authenticated bits=0) by gizmo.2hip.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n8UBNXKw084676 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:23:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from rnoland@FreeBSD.org) From: Robert Noland To: Oliver Lehmann In-Reply-To: <20090930111734.58106.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> References: <20090930060202.45527.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <200909301646.35019.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20090930075357.49914.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <1254304611.2268.962.camel@balrog.2hip.net> <20090930111734.58106.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: FreeBSD Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:23:27 -0500 Message-Id: <1254309807.2268.1052.camel@balrog.2hip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_DYNAMIC, SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on gizmo.2hip.net X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:50:19 +0000 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SATA is to slow comparing with linux 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:23:39 -0000 On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 13:17 +0200, Oliver Lehmann wrote: > Robert Noland writes: > > > On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 09:53 +0200, Oliver Lehmann wrote: > >> I got a Promise SATA300 TX2plus instead. I'll rune some tests with later > >> (when I'm back home ;)) > > > > I would also be curious how that ahci driver from -CURRENT is performing > > relative to other implementations. > > So there is a new driver - never heard about ahci ;) > Is it sufficient to boot 8.0-RC1 livefs? It looks like ahci is not included > in GENERIC so I have to load the module in the 2nd bootloader I guess. > Something else like disabling the old ata driver? Or will the new driver be > used automatically. I was not sure about the man page what "this one" means > (the ataahci or the ahaci?): > > AHCI hardware is also supported by ataahci driver from ata(4) > subsystem. > If both drivers are loaded at the same time, this one will be given > precedence as the more functional of the two. If the ahci driver is loaded via loader.conf it will override that ata driver. The ahci driver is being actively worked on, so I'm not certain how much of the new code is in RC1, but that is a start. robert. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- Robert Noland FreeBSD From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 12:16:39 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B60D71065694 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:16:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from s4mmael@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bw0-f227.google.com (mail-bw0-f227.google.com [209.85.218.227]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE2D8FC19 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:16:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz27 with SMTP id 27so4570651bwz.43 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:16:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=teOvY70l8tsx0cLyyPjjJGabuTw/AlkWminfAQJjuRM=; b=ZqKKxqjLRWoErwOVD+PuPJNE/uKoRyEAvFWJquqYrdCrLMVSXwJz9LSM5aTlrXKDXt EAPGn6y9NxqfBKDCurVg1Bwsg5gGOE2tUCuHf/2uMJas93c6L0OUv7/iNnyvQv8Poty9 c9CT8z1E86OZSyhtjRbyrsd6tUmhdd5nyY0J8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=Qtk4k4Sk6Icl5HSgR/TNDjCayX5ByfY6S2QnWoH+hBES+X/rLSTH8upa1u93tI/5Fk sG0NO9A456RWdWC/iZGMmbsQLd0eAK90OY/gg/dY+5hSgGqF6RG9Rhbt3J67u2LbbxIG uFFW+xmpIBX/lj1HiprVGHqcSjBScLCvXT5S8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.153.215 with SMTP id l23mr5328760bkw.135.1254311398186; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:49:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6e38aed80909300449h61d671a3i2281eb875f649eb6@mail.gmail.com> References: <200909290226.CAA28246@sopwith.solgatos.com> <689d500ec8c95542a53440b8a23ae773@mail.liquidphlux.com> <6e38aed80909300449h61d671a3i2281eb875f649eb6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:49:57 +0400 Message-ID: <6e38aed80909300449p24928d25v2a34d24f309fa808@mail.gmail.com> From: S4mmael To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Fwd: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:16:39 -0000 > Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I think > this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to read the > documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which is > available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame benchmark. What about FreeBSD 7.2? All debug featureas are 100% off in this version, but test results are the same as in 8.0 Besides, UFS is known to be not the fastest FS. So, there is no reason to be suprised. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 12:22:08 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F946106568B for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:22:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from leccine@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f222.google.com (mail-fx0-f222.google.com [209.85.220.222]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C35498FC16 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:22:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm22 with SMTP id 22so1779992fxm.36 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:22:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=+WKTDfcVpihVTmu8jAIM7gficyaAOgprVP9WEaPcgVQ=; b=Ze49/srR9pQVCUZYkD+cuyu6U8qSY5LM4/ZD22OXrZ3ok6zftwr9taZUEpdycAptNY YWkV0NvBsjnX8Qs851wnsIPBAT6VNGHTm2tfLsvXWCMRchFMlIOnhCQvMwN66YuVNj++ SoNntJX2ehilhglOV9wQFJg8MYaidvGJFEgNM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=rPJgV3YA+3m+pYeH5K0Psp05/RaoCAJNRBFT/NhVF+J9KvM+k0AfQzEvsHzHt9Vt6m Cx8ZmvJxgPmezu9/uDTq3wlIAwcfM8AcHF6VM1W4xGNOlD9R4Iz8ow0RHRZ6msa0UeW1 WUhze09rdQdeYE59jyX+P9D/Ee2pLogfplxbc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.3.19 with SMTP id 19mr5250249bkl.151.1254313326521; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:22:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6e38aed80909300449p24928d25v2a34d24f309fa808@mail.gmail.com> References: <200909290226.CAA28246@sopwith.solgatos.com> <689d500ec8c95542a53440b8a23ae773@mail.liquidphlux.com> <6e38aed80909300449h61d671a3i2281eb875f649eb6@mail.gmail.com> <6e38aed80909300449p24928d25v2a34d24f309fa808@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:22:06 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?B?SXN0duFu?= To: S4mmael Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:22:08 -0000 have you seen the previous mail about 8.0 and debug stuff? you might have overlooked it. yes UFS is not the fastest, it is FAT16, stick to that :) On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:49 PM, S4mmael wrote: > > Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I think > > this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to read > the > > documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which is > > available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame benchmark. > What about FreeBSD 7.2? All debug featureas are 100% off in this > version, but test results are the same as in 8.0 > Besides, UFS is known to be not the fastest FS. So, there is no reason > to be suprised. > _______________________________________________ > 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" > -- the sun shines for all From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 13:42:44 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27384106568D for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:42:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E32928FC14 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:42:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mdt-xp.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [192.168.43.27]) by lava.sentex.ca (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n8UDImSr014557; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:18:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <200909301318.n8UDImSr014557@lava.sentex.ca> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:18:47 -0400 To: Bruce Cran , Robert Noland From: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: <20090930141036.0000184b@unknown> References: <20090930060202.45527.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <200909301646.35019.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20090930075357.49914.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <1254304611.2268.962.camel@balrog.2hip.net> <20090930141036.0000184b@unknown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Oliver Lehmann Subject: Re: SATA is to slow comparing with linux 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:42:44 -0000 At 09:10 AM 9/30/2009, Bruce Cran wrote: >I ran the tiobench test on -CURRENT a few days ago and the ahci driver >showed an improvement in latency over the ata driver; I didn't >test transfer rates though. I was running the AHCI driver on the freebsd-current tinderbox for 3 weeks with very good results. I had to recently change back to the ata code as smartmontools are not (yet) supported and one of the drives started to throw errors. Other than that, I found it to be the same speed or faster (depending on the workload). This was on a Phenom 9950 Processor and ATI IXP700/800 SATA300 chipset on AMD64, 8G of RAM. ---Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike@sentex.net Providing Internet since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada www.sentex.net/mike From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 15:29:33 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3ADF1065679 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:29:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from martin.mato@wanadoo.fr) Received: from smtp.univ-perp.fr (smtp.univ-perp.fr [IPv6:2001:660:6302:1:218:feff:fe7c:5a12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 173248FC22 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:29:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [194.167.138.5] (pcmartino.univ-perp.fr [194.167.138.5]) by smtp.univ-perp.fr (8.13.1/jtpda-5.4) with ESMTP id n8UFTNjD020537 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:29:24 +0200 Message-ID: <4AC37945.3070703@wanadoo.fr> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:29:09 +0200 From: Martin MATO User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org References: <200909290226.CAA28246@sopwith.solgatos.com> <689d500ec8c95542a53440b8a23ae773@mail.liquidphlux.com> <6e38aed80909300449h61d671a3i2281eb875f649eb6@mail.gmail.com> <6e38aed80909300449p24928d25v2a34d24f309fa808@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (smtp.univ-perp.fr [194.167.137.6]); Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:29:24 +0200 (CEST) X-univ-perp-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-univ-perp-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-univ-perp-MailScanner-From: martin.mato@wanadoo.fr X-Spam-Status: No MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: martin.mato@wanadoo.fr List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:29:33 -0000 Istv=E1n a =E9crit=A0: have you seen the previous mail about 8.0 and debug stuff? you might have overlooked it. yes UFS is not the fastest, it is FAT16, stick to that :) On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:49 PM, S4mmael [1] wrote: Since the article says that they left the debugging fe= atures on I think this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to read the documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same= compiler which is available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame benchmark. What about FreeBSD 7.2? All debug featureas are 100% off= in this version, but test results are the same as in 8.0 Besides, UFS is known to be not the fastest FS. So, there is no reason to be suprised. _______________________________________________ [2]freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list [3]http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/fr= eebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to " [4]freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" greetings maybe it is just a dumb thought, but=A0 aio is enabled by default on linux kernels for vfs r/w operations? --=20 Ce message a =E9t=E9 v=E9rifi=E9 par [5]MailScanner pour des virus ou des polluriels et rien de suspect n'a =E9t=E9 trouv=E9. CRI UPVD http://www.univ-perp.fr References 1. 3D"mailto:s4mmael@gmail.com" 2. 3D"mailto:freebsd-performance@fr= 3. 3D"http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman= 4. 3D"mailto:freebsd-performance-un= 5. 3D"http://www.mailscanner.info/" From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 13:27:22 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F035106566B for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:27:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bruce@cran.org.uk) Received: from muon.cran.org.uk (muon.cran.org.uk [66.246.138.153]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 341B28FC13 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:27:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from unknown (87-194-158-129.bethere.co.uk [87.194.158.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by muon.cran.org.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 952C981D0; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:11:31 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:10:36 +0100 From: Bruce Cran To: Robert Noland Message-ID: <20090930141036.0000184b@unknown> In-Reply-To: <1254304611.2268.962.camel@balrog.2hip.net> References: <20090930060202.45527.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <200909301646.35019.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20090930075357.49914.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <1254304611.2268.962.camel@balrog.2hip.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.2cvs15 (GTK+ 2.16.0; i586-pc-mingw32msvc) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:57:09 +0000 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Oliver Lehmann Subject: Re: SATA is to slow comparing with linux 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:27:22 -0000 On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:56:51 -0500 Robert Noland wrote: > On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 09:53 +0200, Oliver Lehmann wrote: > > Daniel O'Connor writes: > > > > > In the end I got a PCI Silicon Image 3114 based controller and it > > > worked fine. > > > > I thought about getting a controller with a SiL-Chil too because > > they are kinda cheap and another system I intend to use with SATA > > harddisks has no SATA on-board. But then I searched through the web > > and read many posts telling me "stay away from Silicon Image > > controllers" so I did as advised.... > > > > I got a Promise SATA300 TX2plus instead. I'll rune some tests with > > later (when I'm back home ;)) > > I would also be curious how that ahci driver from -CURRENT is > performing relative to other implementations. I ran the tiobench test on -CURRENT a few days ago and the ahci driver showed an improvement in latency over the ata driver; I didn't test transfer rates though. -- Bruce From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 16:47:09 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9865A10656D2 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:47:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lehmann@ans-netz.de) Received: from avocado.salatschuessel.net (avocado.salatschuessel.net [78.111.72.186]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F1EB98FC29 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:47:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 70692 invoked by uid 89); 30 Sep 2009 16:47:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kartoffel.salatschuessel.net) (78.111.72.187) by avocado.salatschuessel.net with SMTP; 30 Sep 2009 16:47:06 -0000 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:47:07 +0200 From: Oliver Lehmann To: Robert Noland Message-Id: <20090930184707.26203403.lehmann@ans-netz.de> In-Reply-To: <1254304611.2268.962.camel@balrog.2hip.net> References: <20090930060202.45527.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <200909301646.35019.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20090930075357.49914.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <1254304611.2268.962.camel@balrog.2hip.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.7.1 (GTK+ 2.16.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd7.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:57:23 +0000 Cc: Daniel O'Connor , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SATA is to slow comparing with linux 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:47:09 -0000 Robert Noland wrote: > I would also be curious how that ahci driver from -CURRENT is performing > relative to other implementations. I tried 8.0-RC1-i386.iso but the ahci driver didn't picked up my promise nor my VIA controller. So all the numbers now for the "old" ata driver. CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3500+ (2200.10-MHz K8-class CPU) usable memory = 2138615808 (2039 MB) atapci0: ad4: 953869MB at ata2-master SATA300 atapci1: ad10: 953869MB at ata5-master SATA150 A simple "dd if=/dev/zero of=/mntpoint/test.dd bs=1M count=4069" showed: FreeBSD 8.0-RC1-i386 (LiveCD) Promise: 42 MB/sec VIA: 43 MB/sec FreeBSD 7.2-STABLE-amd64 Promise: 39 MB/sec VIA: 40 MB/sec Knoppix Linux 2.6 (LiveCD) Promise: 52 MB/sec VIA: 57 MB/sec I only have bonnie results for Knoppix (where installing aplications works) and FreeBSD 7.2 since 8.0 was a LiveCD... FreeBSD 7.2-STABLE-amd64 Promise: Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP kartoffel.salats 4G 588 99 41062 5 17618 2 1150 97 47672 3 201.2 2 Latency 26548us 72687us 1032ms 31840us 75449us 2497ms Version 1.96 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- kartoffel.salatschu -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 956 1 +++++ +++ 1921 2 1022 1 +++++ +++ 1800 2 Latency 32679us 73us 56709us 41386us 154us 3340us FreeBSD 7.2-STABLE-i386 VIA: Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP kartoffel.salats 4G 507 99 41771 5 18176 2 1031 96 47754 4 204.7 2 Latency 27839us 92373us 1027ms 59450us 75962us 192ms Version 1.96 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- kartoffel.salatschu -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 1006 1 +++++ +++ 1937 2 1029 1 +++++ +++ 1908 3 Latency 38776us 97us 77620us 39084us 60us 3998us Knoppix Linux 2.6 (LiveCD) Promise: Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP Microknoppix 4G 337 99 49887 15 30244 8 940 97 80670 10 213.8 3 Latency 32400us 1258ms 1080ms 60634us 35019us 317ms Version 1.96 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- Microknoppix -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 24364 46 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 29360 56 +++++ +++ 30707 50 Latency 31943us 33392us 33427us 18530us 33391us 33425us Knoppix Linux 2.6 (LiveCD) VIA: Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP Microknoppix 4G 355 99 55556 16 31982 8 1098 97 80977 10 215.4 2 Latency 25281us 1307ms 703ms 37743us 30772us 299ms Version 1.96 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- Microknoppix -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 14013 27 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 31883 60 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ Latency 36642us 2973us 30053us 12843us 30014us 30030us As you can see linux has a much higher data transfer rate on both controller than FreeBSD offers. Any sugestions? -- Oliver Lehmann http://www.pofo.de/ http://wishlist.ans-netz.de/ From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 18:00:23 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DD161065676 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:00:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAE238FC0C for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:00:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1Mt3TR-0005a1-1W>; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:00:21 +0200 Received: from e178032088.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.178.32.88] helo=thor.walstatt.dyndns.org) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1Mt3TQ-0000Gf-Uh>; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:00:21 +0200 Message-ID: <4AC39CB4.9050600@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:00:20 +0200 From: "O. Hartmann" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090822) MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org References: <200909290226.CAA28246@sopwith.solgatos.com> <689d500ec8c95542a53440b8a23ae773@mail.liquidphlux.com> <6e38aed80909300449h61d671a3i2281eb875f649eb6@mail.gmail.com> <6e38aed80909300449p24928d25v2a34d24f309fa808@mail.gmail.com> <4AC37945.3070703@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <4AC37945.3070703@wanadoo.fr> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-IP: 85.178.32.88 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:51:51 +0000 Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss... 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:00:23 -0000 Martin MATO wrote: > Istv=E1n a =E9crit : >=20 > have you seen the previous mail about 8.0 and debug stuff? >=20 > you might have overlooked it. >=20 > yes UFS is not the fastest, it is FAT16, stick to that :) >=20 > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:49 PM, S4mmael [1] wrote:= >=20 >=20 >=20 > Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I think= > this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to read= That's possibly true, but the huge difference in threaded I/O and memory copy can't be explained by simply leaving debug switches to ON. >=20 >=20 > the >=20 >=20 > documentation, and didn't seem to care to use the same compiler which i= s > available in ports, I believe it is safe to chuck this lame benchmark. >=20 >=20 > What about FreeBSD 7.2? All debug featureas are 100% off in this > version, but test results are the same as in 8.0 > Besides, UFS is known to be not the fastest FS. So, there is no reason > to be suprised. UFS2 has its benefits, even over ZFS (less memory, speed in some cases). From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 18:05:34 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD80106566B for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:05:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lehmann@ans-netz.de) Received: from avocado.salatschuessel.net (avocado.salatschuessel.net [78.111.72.186]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 55F8D8FC17 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:05:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 73142 invoked by uid 89); 30 Sep 2009 18:05:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kartoffel.salatschuessel.net) (78.111.72.187) by avocado.salatschuessel.net with SMTP; 30 Sep 2009 18:05:32 -0000 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:05:32 +0200 From: Oliver Lehmann To: Andriy Gapon Message-Id: <20090930200532.ba171eee.lehmann@ans-netz.de> In-Reply-To: <4AC39B2A.4090900@icyb.net.ua> References: <20090930060202.45527.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <200909301646.35019.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20090930075357.49914.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <1254304611.2268.962.camel@balrog.2hip.net> <20090930184707.26203403.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <4AC39B2A.4090900@icyb.net.ua> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.7.1 (GTK+ 2.16.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd7.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:51:57 +0000 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Robert Noland Subject: Re: SATA is to slow comparing with linux 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:05:34 -0000 Andriy Gapon wrote: > What mode do you have set for your controllers in BIOS? > AHCI or IDE/Legacy/etc? Yeah I read about this too but my BIOS offers only "RAID" and "SATA" - tried both so I think AHCI is just not supported on my K8T800Pro chipset for the SATA controller. -- Oliver Lehmann http://www.pofo.de/ http://wishlist.ans-netz.de/ From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 18:06:38 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3194F106568F for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:06:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F328FC28 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:06:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from odyssey.starpoint.kiev.ua (alpha-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.101]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id UAA14256; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:53:47 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Message-ID: <4AC39B2A.4090900@icyb.net.ua> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:53:46 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090825) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Oliver Lehmann References: <20090930060202.45527.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <200909301646.35019.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20090930075357.49914.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <1254304611.2268.962.camel@balrog.2hip.net> <20090930184707.26203403.lehmann@ans-netz.de> In-Reply-To: <20090930184707.26203403.lehmann@ans-netz.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:52:15 +0000 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Robert Noland Subject: Re: SATA is to slow comparing with linux 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:06:38 -0000 on 30/09/2009 19:47 Oliver Lehmann said the following: > Robert Noland wrote: > >> I would also be curious how that ahci driver from -CURRENT is performing >> relative to other implementations. > > I tried 8.0-RC1-i386.iso but the ahci driver didn't picked up my promise > nor my VIA controller. So all the numbers now for the "old" ata driver. What mode do you have set for your controllers in BIOS? AHCI or IDE/Legacy/etc? -- Andriy Gapon From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 18:06:50 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5926C1065692 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:06:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vilmos.gyorgy@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ew0-f209.google.com (mail-ew0-f209.google.com [209.85.219.209]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB0E98FC12 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:06:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy5 with SMTP id 5so798861ewy.36 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:06:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/BhdKUa6LZDkWaT0FyvZ8ojGlBY8acOCbjb4mo/anhU=; b=B+gB1F1XxHFYF/SJNa2GHZskuRedyqNBypg4SJl1A/HzYKfFycgAYXVG/wveaJ+J9B sOljtjRkJyysurehUZIpJNphkO4W6JynsZWiCg1otFyphH3dgVe8P/hrz0JArzGck6l/ YJLDjE0fElUoCdoWl1duiSfwcYtqbzD7OFTdc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=QMrjzgGw0bImeofS8Ws+pC4yFE8TKeCG553hJKJzP1Pj1ZWnY22lVLD/inFjzRPRnn kKyYs7bH5morR3342ZM1dxZne1IETsYdKlBQi4dn/D5b2ZeliD23nT7/5jqZLWsMxzMo DlupMkR7fSXiHcWUNJsc2CB9DzQYqR73sA8g4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.73.197 with SMTP id v47mr24095wed.108.1254334007545; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:06:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe10909290811p6ac49f7fxaf7e7d4bf631da4c@mail.gmail.com> References: <3bbf2fe10909290811p6ac49f7fxaf7e7d4bf631da4c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:06:47 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gy=F6rgy_Vilmos?= To: Attilio Rao X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:52:32 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance evaluation of PostgreSQL's historic releases 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:06:50 -0000 Hi, 2009/9/29 Attilio Rao > 2009/9/29 Gy=F6rgy Vilmos : > > Hi, > > > > I've done a benchmark of recent versions of PostgreSQL's last five majo= r > > releases to see how performance has changed during the past years from > > version to version. > > You can find the article here: > > http://suckit.blog.hu/2009/09/26/postgresql_history > > > > The tests were conducted on FreeBSD 8/amd64 on a midrange x86 server (4 > > CPUs, 24 cores, 128GiB RAM). > > Do you have informations about the systime when doing such tests? > I haven't got enough time to do the measurement right, so I could not log that. But according to top there were idle times. BTW, even on one thread, Linux (2.6.31) performs much better, better means here 790 TPS vs. 580... --=20 http://suckit.blog.hu/ From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 18:09:50 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E37F1065670 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:09:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vilmos.gyorgy@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ew0-f209.google.com (mail-ew0-f209.google.com [209.85.219.209]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1B1A8FC0A for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:09:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy5 with SMTP id 5so802128ewy.36 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:09:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=PxIDZcwds64lti/r7lkkLj2xz60+HjgEfRQk7vpftUw=; b=qVJQIwhzFZi6c8XRxuchvTNrNHbig0ws5DqwMs4F+bx4g0x5ANHm1ugKqY51OIyDLy Zi38endMlW9Im7nZumI1DtvtyUL9Ace5XoTpyF15EkCQMc6HVB0TOVDejFE76UeeLX1M czn3GwGmWXXCW7OShOAxoIFMmgv9lB3PhlFl0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=yGesDgY4LqrvkhENZV7mmQjd3va9aqdwS5Svw1WZOa2SmLsrs6uNXddK+zpZu8Kr54 BWr/J2kKnWjiEGl7e4Wx1qlwle/CxlHwNbzm8Rn+THZkf8gji9cunGtVv1oOd/licSEO QeHVwofltkTZIrEdMu/iXjPZEFhzAbrQLborc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.35.193 with SMTP id u43mr26616wea.113.1254334187771; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:09:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:09:47 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gy=F6rgy_Vilmos?= To: Francisco Reyes X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:52:42 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance evaluation of PostgreSQL's historic releases 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:09:50 -0000 2009/9/29 Francisco Reyes > Gy=F6rgy Vilmos writes: > > I've done a benchmark of recent versions of PostgreSQL's last five major >> releases to see how performance has changed during the past years from >> version to version. >> > > Thanks! > Very interesting. > Did you share it with the Postgresql list yet? > I think they would find it very interesting. > > Any plans on doing simmilar tests with data that does not fit in memory? > Also could you share what settings were used for postgres? Where any > defaults changed? Effective memory, shared_buffers, etc... any of them > adjusted for the machine's memory? > I've updated the article with the used config. With this machine everything would fit in memory (72G disk versus 128 G RAM :). Of course I could artificially limit it... --=20 http://suckit.blog.hu/ From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 19:53:40 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B86B41065694 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:53:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erikt@midgard.homeip.net) Received: from ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net (ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net [80.76.149.213]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70FD88FC1C for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:53:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from c83-255-48-78.bredband.comhem.se ([83.255.48.78]:49321 helo=falcon.midgard.homeip.net) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Mt50Q-0002q6-7K for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:38:32 +0200 Received: (qmail 51175 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2009 21:38:28 +0200 Received: from owl.midgard.homeip.net (10.1.5.7) by falcon.midgard.homeip.net with ESMTP; 30 Sep 2009 21:38:28 +0200 Received: (qmail 95072 invoked by uid 1001); 30 Sep 2009 21:38:28 +0200 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:38:28 +0200 From: Erik Trulsson To: Oliver Lehmann Message-ID: <20090930193827.GA95011@owl.midgard.homeip.net> References: <20090930060202.45527.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <200909301646.35019.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20090930075357.49914.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <1254304611.2268.962.camel@balrog.2hip.net> <20090930184707.26203403.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <4AC39B2A.4090900@icyb.net.ua> <20090930200532.ba171eee.lehmann@ans-netz.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090930200532.ba171eee.lehmann@ans-netz.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Originating-IP: 83.255.48.78 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1Mt50Q-0002q6-7K. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1Mt50Q-0002q6-7K 6cd51baa697217a3dc52b1b6d3f3a3a2 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:02:23 +0000 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Andriy Gapon , Robert Noland Subject: Re: SATA is to slow comparing with linux 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:53:40 -0000 On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 08:05:32PM +0200, Oliver Lehmann wrote: > Andriy Gapon wrote: > > > What mode do you have set for your controllers in BIOS? > > AHCI or IDE/Legacy/etc? > > Yeah I read about this too but my BIOS offers only "RAID" and "SATA" - > tried both so I think AHCI is just not supported on my K8T800Pro chipset > for the SATA controller. No, AHCI isn't supported there. The VIA K8T800Pro chipset was one of the earlier chipsets with built-in support for SATA, and back then AHCI had not been defined yet. There are many other SATA controllers which also do not support AHCI. -- Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 30 22:36:48 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C7AA106566B; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:36:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F305F8FC0A; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:36:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1Mt7mv-0002GU-S3>; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:36:45 +0200 Received: from e178032088.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.178.32.88] helo=thor.walstatt.dyndns.org) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1Mt7mv-0004HK-Pg>; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:36:45 +0200 Message-ID: <4AC3DD7D.2000507@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:36:45 +0200 From: "O. Hartmann" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090822) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Erik Trulsson References: <20090930060202.45527.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <200909301646.35019.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20090930075357.49914.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <1254304611.2268.962.camel@balrog.2hip.net> <20090930184707.26203403.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <4AC39B2A.4090900@icyb.net.ua> <20090930200532.ba171eee.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20090930193827.GA95011@owl.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <20090930193827.GA95011@owl.midgard.homeip.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: 85.178.32.88 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:04:35 +0000 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Oliver Lehmann , Robert Noland , Andriy Gapon Subject: Re: SATA is to slow comparing with linux 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:36:48 -0000 Erik Trulsson wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 08:05:32PM +0200, Oliver Lehmann wrote: >> Andriy Gapon wrote: >> >>> What mode do you have set for your controllers in BIOS? >>> AHCI or IDE/Legacy/etc? >> Yeah I read about this too but my BIOS offers only "RAID" and "SATA" - >> tried both so I think AHCI is just not supported on my K8T800Pro chipset >> for the SATA controller. > > No, AHCI isn't supported there. The VIA K8T800Pro chipset was one of the > earlier chipsets with built-in support for SATA, and back then AHCI had not > been defined yet. There are many other SATA controllers which also do not > support AHCI. ... as the nVidia nForce4/32 (CK804) on many Socket S939-boards for AMD Athlon64 or singlesocket Opterons. Regards, Oliver From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 1 04:11:52 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92F6E106566B for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 04:11:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@sopwith.solgatos.com) Received: from sopwith.solgatos.com (pool-173-50-131-36.ptldor.fios.verizon.net [173.50.131.36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57D718FC0C for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 04:11:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by sopwith.solgatos.com (Postfix, from userid 66) id 18432B64F; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:18:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost by sopwith.solgatos.com (8.8.8/6.24) id TAA20656; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:55:04 GMT Message-Id: <200909301955.TAA20656@sopwith.solgatos.com> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:30:34 +0200." <3bbf2fe10909292330t753bcad1r69ae67d7e898ee35@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:55:04 PDT From: Dieter Subject: Re: A specific example of a disk i/o problem 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 Oct 2009 04:11:52 -0000 > >> > My question is why is FreeBSD's disk i/o performance so bad? > > Here is a specific demo of one disk i/o problem I'm seeing. Should be > > easy to reproduce? > > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance/2008-July/003533.html > > > > This was over a year ago, so add 7.1 to the list of versions with the problem. > > I believe that the > > swap_pager: indefinite wait buffer: bufobj: 0, blkno: 1148109, size: 4096 > > messages I'm getting are the same problem. A user process is hogging > > the bottleneck (disk buffer cache?) and the swapper/pager is getting starved. > > Sorry, do you have a PR/describing e-mail with this issue? Can you be > a bit more precise? I have not submitted a PR for this particular problem. (yet) The hardware seems to work fine. A single process can access a disk at full speed, over 100 MB/s for recent 7200 rpm SATA drives. Same for the nforce4-ultra (chipset), JMB363 (PCIe card), or SiI 3132 (PCIe card) controllers. Same for Hitachi, Seagate, Samsung, or WD drives. CPU bound processes play well together. The problem is when I run a disk i/o bound process like cat, dd, etc. The i/o bound process sucks up some resource and other processes get starved for disk i/o not just for milliseconds, but for seconds, even minutes. The example in .../2008-July/003533.html uses a single disk, but the problem also occurs across disks and across controllers. Coming up with a demo using multiple disks that would be easy for someone else to duplicate is more difficult, which is why the demo uses a single disk. It happens with both reading and writing. I don't think it has anything to do with the filesystem (FFS with softdeps). It doesn't matter which process starts first. Given the behaviour, the bottleneck must be something that is common to all the disks, such as the disk cache. The BSD kernel has changed significantly since I took the internals class, so my understanding of the internals is somewhat obsolete. But my best guess is that the bottleneck is some kernel disk cache or disk job queue that the i/o bound job fills up and keeps filled up, and other processes rarely get a chance to get their i/o requests in. Nice, even idprio, has little if any effect. On the machines that Unix grew up on (PDP11, VAX) the CPU was nearly always the scarce resource, so the scheduler doesn't penalize a process for using lots of i/o. This is a serious problem on current hardware. There is no way to keep one process's i/o from interferring with another process. > The problem reported in the earlier post, however, is interesting and > worths more analysis. Can anyone reproduce it? > More speficially, would you be interested in reproducing and playing a > bit with some diagnostic tool/configurations I can point you at? I would welcome info on diagnosing/config/tuning/etc. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 1 13:10:45 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0121A1065672 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 13:10:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@collaborativefusion.com) Received: from mx00.pub.collaborativefusion.com (mx00.pub.collaborativefusion.com [206.210.89.199]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8FD08FC0C for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 13:10:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (overdrive.ws.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com [192.168.2.162]) (SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by wingspan with esmtp; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:10:43 -0400 id 00056419.000000004AC4AA53.000115DD Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:10:43 -0400 From: Bill Moran To: Dieter Message-Id: <20091001091043.477f4b9b.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> In-Reply-To: <200909301955.TAA20656@sopwith.solgatos.com> References: <3bbf2fe10909292330t753bcad1r69ae67d7e898ee35@mail.gmail.com> <200909301955.TAA20656@sopwith.solgatos.com> Organization: Collaborative Fusion Inc. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.7.1 (GTK+ 2.16.5; i386-portbld-freebsd7.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A specific example of a disk i/o problem 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 Oct 2009 13:10:45 -0000 In response to Dieter : > > >> > My question is why is FreeBSD's disk i/o performance so bad? > > > > Here is a specific demo of one disk i/o problem I'm seeing. Should be > > > easy to reproduce? > > > > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance/2008-July/003533.html FYI, I thought I'd play around with this some in an attempt to add some useful information to the investigation. I can not reproduce the problem at all. I created a 9G file, did the cat as described in the above URL, and the man request completed in roughly the same time it did without the cat running. Just to mix it up a bit, I tried running ls -R on a large directory tree while the cat was running as well, and performance did not seem to be significantly impacted there, either. I ran the tests on my work machine, which is a Dell Optiplex 960 running FreeBSD 7.2-RELEASE-p3 i386. Some relevant dmesg stuff: atapci0: port 0xfe80-0xfe87,0xfe90-0xfe93,0xfea0-0xfea7,0xfeb0-0xfeb3,0xfef0-0xfeff irq 18 at device 3.2 on pci0 atapci1: port 0xfe00-0xfe07,0xfe10-0xfe13,0xfe20-0xfe27,0xfe30-0xfe33,0xfec0-0xfedf mem 0xff970000-0xff9707ff irq 18 at device 31.2 on pci0 ad14: 476940MB at ata7-master SATA150 -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/ From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 2 05:11:54 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8030106575C for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 05:11:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@sopwith.solgatos.com) Received: from sopwith.solgatos.com (pool-173-50-131-36.ptldor.fios.verizon.net [173.50.131.36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB28D8FC22 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 05:11:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by sopwith.solgatos.com (Postfix, from userid 66) id 27B08B64F; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 22:09:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost by sopwith.solgatos.com (8.8.8/6.24) id FAA13295; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 05:07:42 GMT Message-Id: <200910020507.FAA13295@sopwith.solgatos.com> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:10:43 EDT." <20091001091043.477f4b9b.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:07:42 PDT From: Dieter Subject: Re: A specific example of a disk i/o problem 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: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 05:11:54 -0000 > > > >> > My question is why is FreeBSD's disk i/o performance so bad? > > > > > > Here is a specific demo of one disk i/o problem I'm seeing. Should be > > > > easy to reproduce? > > > > > > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance/2008-July/003533.html > > FYI, I thought I'd play around with this some in an attempt to add some > useful information to the investigation. > > I can not reproduce the problem at all. I created a 9G file, did the cat > as described in the above URL, and the man request completed in roughly > the same time it did without the cat running. How large is main memory on this machine? e.g. is 9 GB large enough to flush everything else out of the disk cache before running the man command again? I haven't studied the new unified memory thing, but if we assume worst case, reading at 50 M/s would take 40 seconds to flush 2 GiB. BTW there is nothing magic about a 9 GB file, just that it is large enough to flush the 2 GiB of main memory on my machine and takes long enough to read to notice a difference in how long it takes to run man. Updated demo, just to make sure: # big_file is larger than main memory, on same disk as man (/usr) time man de # get baseline time for man command without competing i/o cat big_file > /dev/null # flush man command and data from memory cat big_file > /dev/null & # generate i/o, attempt to use up bottleneck time man de # see how much longer man takes with competing i/o From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 2 17:29:51 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43FD41065670 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:29:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mahlerrd@yahoo.com) Received: from web51006.mail.re2.yahoo.com (web51006.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.38.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 00C068FC2B for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:29:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 45683 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Oct 2009 17:29:50 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1254504590; bh=+Se53H9QsuJ1b3z2/BoWZIsAAgg1OUzQ9vFzJ+xk8o4=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=kTdQUOQuNvPvugqy0vPuFld2uhI6nuCoIRsDE4hsESreagK51H/14Uolc4gKRrRvDRoKKrBr5qW4BLijvpMOkUzsthgI2PUaA7u69wp7nWjpqd1xGeBrgfBzbp0EoWbM9RbXhyCAdvbyUcZZllbnl/xgMD0eLn77X0d/DCgvc6o= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=I1ZXGhdchtuWdGenn1xQpfePAJC0pZt8yaaDBdyVDjafI4fKlKxxmONOPiW+Fj6ZM6sRMkLwyAvQfyTQLCceVof1mriam9sSb/iEi38fg3XRTm+lm8bF7pKfjXwp4zYfmNmxMadeQFkOwr3AyGcYQiAYqYLY7blTTwxc5hQ4W7k=; Message-ID: <160343.45338.qm@web51006.mail.re2.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: 67hAajcVM1m5kdXdfxDLIVDxjCnZ1BhWpdQjPcCHcENSzX8v2A6YLFTaPlQy5VBEe2q.Rs._IDw6UyA8zpa69iiAhjXgdhA.wBx664WBcfCHPaH8OOtTQWOjnLaBgSpOXPvUv1_PIXhfU1izd99EG4Rc42B5U0UA5mSXx5U27ez2Bs93vLNMiCxbPgwTSuF2cfkKnHGTH_NXDbzD_nxpX6v6tZtJ5mob3SesqY8J4rJFvuP2ONzH7v0yO6wfxKdflOzGJLnNespeJb3c4vcXGf.fIcXCq6AKyPGEo.w6guO7gCR8nwV8l5jfHP5Dz9kwuGI4t3DAPqIE_Xe8gRharQG8ZAE7FtS.YMg4kvtHEnaknogHLfgz5pX1oD6has4405N7NBWyQcnsqaKGVXH_E5fzTMw- Received: from [74.40.57.42] by web51006.mail.re2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:29:50 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/7.0.14 YahooMailWebService/0.7.347.3 Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 10:29:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Mahlerwein To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: A specific example of a disk i/o problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: mahlerrd@yahoo.com List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:29:51 -0000 >From: Dieter =0A>Subject: Re: A specific exa= mple of a disk i/o problem=0A>To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org=0A>Date: = Friday, October 2, 2009, 1:07 AM=0A>=0A>Updated demo, just to make sure:=0A= >=0A># big_file is larger than main memory, on same disk as man (/usr)=0A>t= ime man de=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0 =0A>cat big_file > /dev/null=A0=A0=A0=0A>cat = big_file > /dev/null &=A0=0A>time man de=0A=0ATrying it on something that s= urely will have i/o issues:=0APIII 500 w/ 60 GB PATA drive and 256 MB RAM.= =A0 Blank=0Aminimal install + man pages right now.=A0 I'm trying with=0Aa "= file /etc/" command instead of trying to reliably time=0Aman... It seems th= e file command always hits the disk.=A0=0AThis should also make any sort of= "flushing" unecessary,=0Ashouldn't it? Anyway, I tried it with the man co= mmand but couldn't discern any difference at all with it, so I'm repeating = with "file" which at least gives SOME variance.=0A =0Aliebnitz# uname -a=0A= FreeBSD xyz 7.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.2-RELEASE #0: Fri May=A0 1 08:49:13 UTC 2= 009=A0 =A0=A0=A0root@walker.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC=A0= =0Ai386=0A=0Aliebnitz# time dd if=3D/dev/zero of=3D/usr/bigfile count=3D409= 6 bs=3D1M=0A4096+0 records in=0A4096+0 records out=0A4294967296 bytes trans= ferred in 363.700967 secs (11809062 bytes/sec)=0A0.055u 83.971s 6:03.78 23.= 0%=A0 =A0 25+1071k 128+34391io 0pf+0w=0A=0Aliebnitz# time file /etc/ [run 5= times]=0A4.052u 0.047s 0:04.14 98.7%=A0 =A0=A015+1085k 0+0io 0pf+0w=0A4.06= 8u 0.031s 0:04.13 99.0%=A0=A0=A0=A016+1095k 0+0io 0pf+0w=0A4.052u 0.046s 0:= 04.13 99.0%=A0=A0=A0=A016+1101k 0+0io 0pf+0w=0A4.044u 0.054s 0:04.13 99.0%= =A0=A0=A0=A016+1092k 0+0io 0pf+0w=0A4.052u 0.046s 0:04.13 99.0%=A0=A0=A0=A0= 15+1091k 0+0io 0pf+0w=0A=0AOk, so that looks pretty repeatable.=A0 Now...= =0A=0Aliebnitz# cat /usr/bigfile > /dev/null &=0A[1] 37923=0Aliebnitz# time= file /etc/* [again run 5 times]=0A4.146u 0.038s 0:06.80 61.3%=A0=A0=A0=A01= 5+1103k 87+0io 8pf+0w=0A4.128u 0.054s 0:06.73 61.9%=A0=A0=A0=A015+1095k 93+= 0io 6pf+0w=0A4.127u 0.056s 0:06.65 62.7% 14+1058k 88+0io 4pf+0w=0A4.111u= 0.072s 0:06.84 61.1% 15+1049k 91+0io 6pf+0w=0A4.115u 0.066s 0:06.86 60.= 7% 15+1022k 91+0io 6pf+0w=0A=0ABTW, after the cat is done...=0Aliebnitz#= time file /etc/*=0A4.051u 0.047s 0:04.13 99.0% 15+1078k 0+0io 0pf+0w= =0A=0AI see no unexpected issues, only a minor slowdown, and that could be = processer contention, IMO. =0A=0A(Sorry for duplicate, I was rewriting wit= h the change to "file" instead of "man" and the two year old decided to pre= ss some keys and sent the message.)=0A=0A=0A From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 2 17:44:07 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 333CE1065696 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:44:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mahlerrd@yahoo.com) Received: from web51006.mail.re2.yahoo.com (web51006.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.38.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CB8AE8FC19 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:44:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 40281 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Oct 2009 17:17:25 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1254503845; bh=BR07J/+Iv9dzIWCBDv5UL8ROL+fYAtCOLDQhU//7zFg=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=yOJsJ2jAmKX/GTIpQ3+DYf+Cv2ZI9ZLYGlgevZFzN2IU0PxnJJdn6ukhCZVW3XBZ/nEhFYQriPi1guLHFKlH2B0zbpMyOlbJ6zS7J5y+hcI2156UV0NRyss0LlRHOPZsbQsmlBw0ah4xkYO4z1zL4JxqkIdEBaDUpvHIqtUCXn4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=kigz5vJoijrU64lcrC84spkVOIWGsiS8nleE5TfwzW7DBgwdoKMa3PJEq4+gBapr4KTZoefCzIwuLLJFIuY/g8RLBQahncD9mowSZQVjU+pM8qZx0hsT1Q5R/PfPtgScTKzsflwbbeeC9aW9QKq9O6ky5ypSfKSSiDMuyQQTkHs=; Message-ID: <969908.40235.qm@web51006.mail.re2.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: cXiXmxgVM1nAGkctbuiWM.Y8ehaYnVrdDWoDv9c.MfjOobhvlgQxEMSXIyKgtQIp53ay.WDPdDc8eA98bU8XIbYJ._kMjaJ6nyXtTQwG.X2zyjXQs55FP9bMjpZLhtRNNNwKUpxmsbMbWdD1EXDMA85hsdyBG9YOTs9Gi2ogvG3KWkVR1zCJ8xfLGVt5vO1GAY3CxbqBSVQLz1LC9q5yJXuJQXhXqK9Ez1dQgrMPhTmHGdZx.FU.8uPjH5TgyY_gHSDdPjUG2IUgNVYGGclkbMX8ciwHQIi737wdwiOxwExNJvapeAQ9k3tqzuHRsQl_nkGRdSEDmbMnU7gGVoXdwf7SRaCEfBBNmXTkhQRiK8hL.DjtJBP_zn3Pme2qnD3Z.2TDdXv7G4QNmqWVfKhDNqW0jGMY4ZQR2f_MIPwibs865mlkwmLyyIs- Received: from [74.40.57.42] by web51006.mail.re2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:17:24 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/7.0.14 YahooMailWebService/0.7.347.3 Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 10:17:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Mahlerwein To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: A specific example of a disk i/o problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: mahlerrd@yahoo.com List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:44:07 -0000 >From: Dieter =0A>Subject: Re: A specific exa= mple of a disk i/o problem=0A>To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org=0A>Date: = Friday, October 2, 2009, 1:07 AM=0A>=0A>Updated demo, just to make sure:=0A= >=0A># big_file is larger than main memory, on same disk as man (/usr)=0A>t= ime man de=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0 # get baseline time for man command without >= competing i/o=0A>cat big_file > /dev/null=A0=A0=A0# flush man command and d= ata from memory=0A>cat big_file > /dev/null &=A0# generate i/o, attempt to = use up bottleneck=0A>time man de=A0 =A0=A0=A0 # see how much longer man tak= es with competing >i/o=0A=0ATrying it on something that surely will have i/= o issues: PIII 500 w/ 60 GB PATA drive and 128 MB RAM. Blank minimal insta= ll + man pages right now. I'm trying with a "file /etc/" command instead o= f trying to reliably time man... It seems the file command always hits the = disk. This should also make any sort of "flushing" unecessary, shouldn't i= t?=0A=0Aliebnitz# uname -a=0AFreeBSD xyz 7.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.2-RELEASE #0= : Fri May 1 08:49:13 UTC 2009 root@walker.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr= /src/sys/GENERIC i386=0A=0Aliebnitz# time dd if=3D/dev/zero of=3D/usr/bigf= ile count=3D4096 bs=3D1M=0A4096+0 records in=0A4096+0 records out=0A4294967= 296 bytes transferred in 363.700967 secs (11809062 bytes/sec)=0A0.055u 83.9= 71s 6:03.78 23.0% 25+1071k 128+34391io 0pf+0w=0A=0Aliebnitz# time file /= etc/ [run 5 times]=0A4.052u 0.047s 0:04.14 98.7% 15+1085k 0+0io 0pf+0w= =0A4.068u 0.031s 0:04.13 99.0% 16+1095k 0+0io 0pf+0w=0A4.052u 0.046s 0:= 04.13 99.0% 16+1101k 0+0io 0pf+0w=0A4.044u 0.054s 0:04.13 99.0% 16+= 1092k 0+0io 0pf+0w=0A4.052u 0.046s 0:04.13 99.0% 15+1091k 0+0io 0pf+0w= =0A=0AOk, so that looks pretty repeatable. Now...=0Aliebnitz# cat /usr/big= file > /dev/null &=0A[1] 37923=0Aliebnitz# time file /etc/* [again run 5 ti= mes]=0A4.146u 0.038s 0:06.80 61.3% 15+1103k 87+0io 8pf+0w=0A4.128u 0.05= 4s 0:06.73 61.9% 15+1095k 93+0io 6pf+0w=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0AFlush as exam= ple.=0Aliebnitz# cat /usr/bigfile > /dev/null=0Aliebnitz# cat /usr/bigfile = > /dev/null &=0A[1] 37890=0A=0A=0A=0A From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 2 18:26:25 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 318B2106568B for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 18:26:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@stringsutils.com) Received: from zoraida.natserv.net (p65-147.acedsl.com [66.114.65.147]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE81B8FC14 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 18:26:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zoraida.natserv.net (zoraida.natserv.net [66.114.65.147]) by zoraida.natserv.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE83F1704F; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 14:26:23 -0400 (EDT) References: <3bbf2fe10909290811p6ac49f7fxaf7e7d4bf631da4c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: X-Mailer: http://www.courier-mta.org/cone/ From: Francisco Reyes To: =?ISO-8859-1?B?R3k/cmd5?= Vilmos Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:26:23 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Attilio Rao , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance evaluation of PostgreSQL's historic releases 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: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:26:25 -0000 György Vilmos writes: > BTW, even on one thread, Linux (2.6.31) performs much better, better means > here 790 TPS vs. 580... What test did you use to meassure TPS? That is a pretty big difference. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 3 18:23:48 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BC411065670; Sat, 3 Oct 2009 18:23:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vilmos.gyorgy@gmail.com) Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com (ey-out-2122.google.com [74.125.78.24]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 183028FC1C; Sat, 3 Oct 2009 18:23:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ey-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 4so403839eyf.9 for ; Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:23:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=qSsCuV9D5gbX7yTCLV7+UNNBF0d0fwBVy8P/xbca4sM=; b=Cxt8k81QgWUZgrJFbaU9MZdSXEMeooCX+52VriX4g9M+L/MU7F/YIzSOwrICsEX5P2 bIbSWvbs00my3PflDjwTEGg1NCoRlAqt68SlnK2SQILGZMMBF+GbtMepZCV7OjZhYLD1 1Eo9WQVfkrJ5M0Mlj+db+iFYLXmhuj8bYTc8w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=FtZF77uC6OoKFKoF50NECipGnCetkPOr1AHbcPi6hcJghnsDaV/wKweGhy3a4q89i/ CkYNjvlEza1nnw3GE7TBBj3UbJRDHifINOl4eJ3WJUXKpihio8nUDBLMYAL2a86bzFpH IKEb3pTLo8JSHq55W2m3h4BXVzryU1/hYmVeE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.87.69 with SMTP id x47mr625551wee.97.1254594226098; Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:23:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <3bbf2fe10909290811p6ac49f7fxaf7e7d4bf631da4c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 20:23:46 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gy=F6rgy_Vilmos?= To: Francisco Reyes X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 19:56:08 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Attilio Rao , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance evaluation of PostgreSQL's historic releases 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: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 18:23:48 -0000 2009/10/2 Francisco Reyes > Gy=F6rgy Vilmos writes: > > BTW, even on one thread, Linux (2.6.31) performs much better, better mea= ns >> here 790 TPS vs. 580... >> > > What test did you use to meassure TPS? > That is a pretty big difference. > > sysbench --=20 http://suckit.blog.hu/