From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 16 03:40:31 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9F1D16A407 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:40:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@qwirky.net) Received: from public.aci.on.ca (aci.on.ca [205.207.148.251]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68EBC13C442 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:40:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@qwirky.net) Received: from (invalid client hostname: host address literal does not match remote client address)[127.0.0.1] (xtreme-156-171.dyn.aci.on.ca[69.17.156.171] port=1638) by public.aci.on.ca([205.207.148.252] port=25) via TCP with esmtp (3848 bytes) (sender: ) id for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:40:20 -0500 (EST) (Smail-3.2.0.122-Pre 2005-Nov-17 #1 built 2006-Feb-21) Message-ID: <45AC492F.6090409@qwirky.net> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:40:31 -0500 From: Jeff Royle User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <20070105165910.GA37906@zone3000.net> <20070107164336.GA13511@crodrigues.org> <45A19994.1050902@qwirky.net> In-Reply-To: <45A19994.1050902@qwirky.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0703-1, 15/01/2007), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: Adaptec 2130S driver performance via postmark 6.2 Release X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lists@qwirky.net List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:40:32 -0000 I was very pleased to see the driver for my Adaptec 2130S controller get into 6.2 release. TY Dev's! No using the binary anymore. I do have a question on performance. Using the binary driver on RC2 (same hardware, same unmodified GENERIC kernel) I got these results... > su-2.05b# postmark > PostMark v1.5 : 3/27/01 > pm>set number=10000 > pm>set transactions=10000 > pm>set subdirectories=10000 > pm>set location /tmp > pm>run > Creating subdirectories...Done > Creating files...Done > Performing transactions..........Done > Deleting files...Done > Deleting subdirectories...Done > Time: > 102 seconds total > 69 seconds of transactions (144 per second) > > Files: > 15027 created (147 per second) > Creation alone: 10000 files (588 per second) > Mixed with transactions: 5027 files (72 per second) > 4990 read (72 per second) > 5009 appended (72 per second) > 15027 deleted (147 per second) > Deletion alone: 10054 files (628 per second) > Mixed with transactions: 4973 files (72 per second) > > Data: > 27.14 megabytes read (272.46 kilobytes per second) > 85.08 megabytes written (854.14 kilobytes per second) > pm>quit > su-2.05b# uname -a > FreeBSD testserv1.aci 6.2-RC2 FreeBSD 6.2-RC2 #0: Sun Dec 24 23:42:30 > UTC 2006 root@dessler.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386 Now using 6.2 Release running postmark I see these results: pm>set number=10000 pm>set transactions=10000 pm>set subdirectories=10000 pm>set location /tmp pm>run Creating subdirectories...Done Creating files...Done Performing transactions..........Done Deleting files...Done Deleting subdirectories...Done Time: 123 seconds total 80 seconds of transactions (125 per second) Files: 15027 created (122 per second) Creation alone: 10000 files (588 per second) Mixed with transactions: 5027 files (62 per second) 4990 read (62 per second) 5009 appended (62 per second) 15027 deleted (122 per second) Deletion alone: 10054 files (386 per second) Mixed with transactions: 4973 files (62 per second) Data: 27.14 megabytes read (225.94 kilobytes per second) 85.08 megabytes written (708.31 kilobytes per second) FreeBSD ovgw.aci.on.ca 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri Jan 12 11:05:30 UTC 2007 root@dessler.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386 Does anyone know what differences either in the driver (I was using b11518) or OS itself that might account for the slightly decreased performance? I realize there may have been many changes that could effect the results, just want to know if anything specific has been noted related to this. Don't get me wrong, the speed is fine not a complaint :) Cheers, Jeff