From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 24 21:59:59 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8E1716A4CF for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:59:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.205]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA04143D31 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:59:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linicks@gmail.com) Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 40so151138rnz for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:59:55 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ES0dVHEujONZVt2/8EQwXmhIt91lXmo+CtAqPpCtQ57d72DR5SzI5SPckWNBfm0tvf4hYUpGu4accQPqi4zSqCPUtOcrDAQq+4u65MZ4VzWZ1kj+2x31rj1n7DO0CK+4vXxuxR1dyNxQ+IIXA1MQiXhbDdB9XHBWLe4oQIMvaBc= Received: by 10.38.26.40 with SMTP id 40mr600402rnz; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:59:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.38.8.43 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:59:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:59:55 -0700 From: Nick Pavlica To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Nick Pavlica List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:59:59 -0000 All, I would like to start addressing some of the feedback that I have been given. I started this discussion because I felt that it was important to share the information I discovered in my testing. I also want to reiterate my earlier statement that this is not an X vs. X discussion, but an attempt to better understand the results, and hopefully look at ways of improving the results I had with FreeBSD 5.x. I'm also looking forward to seeing the improvements to the 5.x branch as it matures. I want to make it very clear that this is NOT A "Religious/Engineering War", please don't try to turn it into one. That said, lets move on to something more productive. I installed both operating systems using as many default options as possible and updated them with all of the latest patches. I was logged in via SSH from my workstation while running the tests. I didn't have X, running on any of the installations because it wasn't need. CPU and RAM utilization wasn't an issue during any of the tests, but the disk I/O performance was dramatically different. Please keep in mind that I ran these tests over and over to see if I had consistent results. I even did the same tests on other pieces of equipment not listed in my notes that yielded the same results time and time again. Some have confirmed that they have had similar results in there testing using other testing tools and methods. This makes me wounder why the gap is so large, and how it can be improved? I think that it would be beneficial to have others in this group do similar testing and post there results. This may help those that are working on the OS itself to find trouble areas, and ways to improve them. It may also help clarify many of the response questions because you will be able to completely control the testing environment. I look forward to seeing the testing results, and any good feedback that helps identify specific tuning options, or bugs that need to be addressed. Thanks! --Nick Pavlica --Laramie, WY