From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 5 22:06:55 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A78B016A46D for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2007 22:06:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chrcoluk@gmail.com) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.173]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1179913C480 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2007 22:06:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chrcoluk@gmail.com) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id u2so340251uge for ; Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:06:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Fp5dBjeRfiuAW7w7HVPZS+//kXTNfGoXAM9wQL8nAAKC+ZWizFvLiy+5onwiaCPzs4dcfgD4DwWuPTXJHj0JSLSjIw9s8bQyLvmISw8P/QkJjeXdcaI4G5zvtqo/gmSGk02X4xL8GNj4McL3mhiNRMALjCT/L1/jPorjEf7U7wU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Zb267QeWnk8D+8v3O+AenVf8sad+ElGREhfWYRgUEXVTJzMBgzAKIvl+wuUIbObCEoeWYvkvIsVdOC+C6mwE+6r2/1W8/8MCt+ndsWdbn5lNJi3cMkB3L+1ozLMlaEF1zstHITfc3IYjTK35a5A8S3a20CV8fKEURV5HBgco8zo= Received: by 10.67.30.6 with SMTP id h6mr762678ugj.1181081212969; Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:06:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.241.12 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Jun 2007 15:06:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3aaaa3a0706051506l57903b0ev4eb12ded2e5a9cec@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 23:06:52 +0100 From: Chris To: "Kris Kennaway" In-Reply-To: <20070604223021.GA31853@rot13.obsecurity.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <466451CA.6020108@tundraware.com> <4664572A.4060003@freebsd.org> <3aaaa3a0706041254r257e1480g872faa6e504df6dc@mail.gmail.com> <20070604223021.GA31853@rot13.obsecurity.org> Cc: Tim Daneliuk , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Colin Percival Subject: Re: New != Faster X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:06:55 -0000 On 04/06/07, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:54:50PM +0100, Chris wrote: > > On 04/06/07, Colin Percival wrote: > > >Tim Daneliuk wrote: > > >> Old 2 PIII @600Mhz 768K 26M/sec 4.11-stable/SMP > > >> 50-60 min > > >> New Pent D (2 core)@3.2GHz 2G 50M/sec 6.2-stable/SMP > > >> 40-50 min > > >> Fast 2 Xeon @3GHz 3G 130M/sec 4.11-stable/SMP > > >> 8 min > > >> > > >> Is the difference in speed > > >> attributable to 4.11 being faster than 6.2? > > > > > >Close. The difference in speed is due to the compiler in 4.11 being > > >faster than the compiler in 6.2. FreeBSD uses the gcc compiler, and > > >between FreeBSD 4.11 and FreeBSD 6.2 that has been upgraded from 2.9 > > >to 3.4. The general trend each time gcc is upgraded is that it takes > > >2x longer to compile code, but produces code which is 5% faster (as a > > >result of "working harder" to find optimizations). > > > > > >FreeBSD 6.2 is faster than FreeBSD 4.11 for almost everything except > > >compiling itself. :-) > > > > > >Colin Percival > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > >To unsubscribe, send any mail to > > >"freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > > > > > What about all the following observations? > > > > slower disk performance especially under QUOTA. > > s/especially//, unless you have further evidence I don't know about. > > > both of these have been confirmed numerous times by different people > > so sweeping them under the carpet and saying they simply not true > > would be wrong. > > My detailed measurements of disk performance and those of others I am > aware of contradicts your claim: 6.x equals or outperforms 4.x on disk > I/O (depends on driver) and filesystem I/O. The only true part of it > is the "under QUOTA" part, which as you know from past discussions, is > still under Giant in 6.x. As you also know, there is a patch to > address this which is awaiting user testing. Have you tested it yet? > > Kris > Having some hardware coming this week when thats all setup I will have a box available for testing patches. Chris