From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 27 09:41:51 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1233) id 26FF11065673; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:41:51 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:41:51 +0000 From: Alexander Best To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20100727094151.GA68226@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Subject: ZFS ATA vs. ZFS CAM ATA performance on 8.1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:41:51 -0000 hi there, i just stumpled upon this article over at phoronix which benchmarks ZFS ATA vs. ZFS CAM ATA on freebsd 8.1 [1]. it seems read performance is really low when CAM ATA is enabled. i remember phoronix being famous for posting stupid benchmarks (RELASE vs. HEAD and such). however their benchmark results in this example seem to be valid. any comments on that? has performance of ATA CAM increased in HEAD? would a UFS2+S+SUJ ATA vs. UFS2+S+SUJ CAM ATA also show equal results? cheers. alex [1] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd_zfs_cam From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 27 10:53:24 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1233) id 2D3F8106566C; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:53:24 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:53:24 +0000 From: Alexander Best To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20100727105324.GA78748@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Subject: updated version of bill fenner's "whodid" script X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:53:24 -0000 hi everyone, i was reading this [1] section of the committers-guide and noticed the reference to bill fenner's "whodid" script [2] which uses CVS. i've modified it a bit to use subversion instead. just thought somebody might find this helpful. [3] cheers. alex [1] http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/committers-guide/article.html#DEVELOPER.RELATIONS [2] ~fenner/bin/whodid [3] http://people.freebsd.org/~arundel/scripts/whodid2.sh From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 28 09:25:53 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94DA41065673; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:25:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from smtp.des.no (smtp.des.no [194.63.250.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 044608FC26; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:25:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ds4.des.no (des.no [84.49.246.2]) by smtp.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5831FFC34; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:25:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ds4.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E8A948454D; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:25:51 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: Alexander Best References: <20100727094151.GA68226@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:25:51 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20100727094151.GA68226@freebsd.org> (Alexander Best's message of "Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:41:51 +0000") Message-ID: <86iq40lzz4.fsf@ds4.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS ATA vs. ZFS CAM ATA performance on 8.1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:25:53 -0000 Alexander Best writes: > i just stumpled upon this article over at phoronix which benchmarks > ZFS ATA vs. ZFS CAM ATA on freebsd 8.1 [1]. it seems read performance > is really low when CAM ATA is enabled. i remember phoronix being > famous for posting stupid benchmarks (RELASE vs. HEAD and > such). however their benchmark results in this example seem to be > valid. I didn't look too closely at the details, but I don't understand why they include gzip and lzma compression in a filesystem performance test. BTW, the 8 + head tinderbox runs ZFS on an 64 GB SSD. When I tested ahci last October, I saw a 7% loss of performance with four paralell builds. I haven't tried a newer kernel. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 29 22:11:16 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1233) id 3E98D106567A; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:11:16 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:11:16 +0000 From: Alexander Best To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-15?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= Message-ID: <20100729221116.GA36103@freebsd.org> References: <20100727094151.GA68226@freebsd.org> <86iq40lzz4.fsf@ds4.des.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <86iq40lzz4.fsf@ds4.des.no> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS ATA vs. ZFS CAM ATA performance on 8.1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:11:16 -0000 On Wed Jul 28 10, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Alexander Best writes: > > i just stumpled upon this article over at phoronix which benchmarks > > ZFS ATA vs. ZFS CAM ATA on freebsd 8.1 [1]. it seems read performance > > is really low when CAM ATA is enabled. i remember phoronix being > > famous for posting stupid benchmarks (RELASE vs. HEAD and > > such). however their benchmark results in this example seem to be > > valid. > > I didn't look too closely at the details, but I don't understand why > they include gzip and lzma compression in a filesystem performance test. > > BTW, the 8 + head tinderbox runs ZFS on an 64 GB SSD. When I tested > ahci last October, I saw a 7% loss of performance with four paralell > builds. I haven't tried a newer kernel. i'd like to do a benchmark UFS2+SU+SUJ ATA vs UFS2+SU+SUJ CAM ATA myself. any recommendations which benchmarks/* port to use? cheers. alex > > DES > -- > Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@des.no -- a13x