From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Mar 15 6:38:55 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 057D214F81 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 06:38:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA15530; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 15:37:54 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id PAA98709; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 15:37:36 +0100 (MET) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 15:37:35 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund To: Yusuf Goolamabbas Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, reiser@ricochet.net, sct@redhat.com Subject: Re: Has anybody used Postmark for file system benchmark Message-ID: <19990315153735.B98270@bitbox.follo.net> References: <19990315082704.1035.qmail@yusufg.portal2.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: <19990315082704.1035.qmail@yusufg.portal2.com>; from Yusuf Goolamabbas on Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 08:27:04AM -0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 08:27:04AM -0000, Yusuf Goolamabbas wrote: > Postmark is available at > > http://www.netapp.com/technology/level3/3022.html > > I am currently trying it out on various FreeBSD 3.1-STABLE boxes (It > compiled cleanly). Thought I would check with others if they had any > experience with this. According to the paper , UFS on Solaris 2.5 > sucks so I am seeing what FreeBSD (and possibly softupdates can do) > > Hope to provide some results soon. I shall be also trying on Linux > boxes (On Linux, I am getting the following error) Remember that the default tuning on the FreeBSD boxes and the Linux boxes are different; this has to be reflected if you're going to attempt to do a fair benchmark. The different modes are Linux FreeBSD Fully synchronous sync sync "Synchronous" metadata, async data N/A (default mode) Fully async (unordered metadata writes)[1] default async Tracking dependencies N/A "soft updates" [1] This mode is highly disfunctional if your data is critical. The normal file system invariants (e.g, that data you write end up in a file you own) are not honoured across unscheduled reboots. It is very useful for news spools etc, of course. Comparing the Linux default to the FreeBSD default is pretty uninteresting; the tradeoffs are totally different. IMO, the most interesting compares are Linux sync against FreeBSD anything-but-async, and Linux async vs FreeBSD async. When you're giving out results, please also include information about the exact hardware platform - a hardware platform that caches will tend to skew the results. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message