Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 17:04:46 +0200 From: dennis berger <db@bsdsystems.de> To: dennis berger <db@nipsi.de> Cc: Paul Pathiakis <pathiaki2@yahoo.com>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de>, "freebsd-performance@freebsd.org" <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: New Phoronix performance benchmarks between some Linuxes and *BSDs Message-ID: <47ED9A36-D61D-42AB-B146-2E03197CBF97@bsdsystems.de> In-Reply-To: <F2325751-7571-44AB-8B84-C7BD76D4812F@nipsi.de> References: <20130528090822.6bfe8771@thor.walstatt.dyndns.org> <CAJ-VmokyRX5G%2B%2Bso=LJk5zEX56J5Q0R-Kiw7oqQJqKnLEMoZuw@mail.gmail.com> <1369746142.64078.YahooMailNeo@web141401.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <F2325751-7571-44AB-8B84-C7BD76D4812F@nipsi.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sorry, I missed the "variable file sizes" part. So forget about my post. Am 28.05.2013 um 16:27 schrieb dennis berger: > Hi, > for me it's unknown what 100 TPS means in that particular case. But = this doesn't make sense at all and I don't see such a low number in the = postmark output here. >=20 > I think I get around 4690+-435 IOPS with 95% confidence. >=20 > Guest and the actual test system is FreeBSD9.1/64bit inside of = Virtualbox. > Host system is MacOSX on 4year old macbook > Storage is VDI file backed on a SSD (OCZ vortex 2) with a 2gb ZFS = pool=20 >=20 > When you I postmark with 25K transactions I get an output like this. = (http://fsbench.filesystems.org/bench/postmark-1_5.c) >=20 > pm>run > Creating files...Done > Performing transactions..........Done > Deleting files...Done > Time: > 6 seconds total > 5 seconds of transactions (5000 per second) >=20 > Files: > 13067 created (2177 per second) > Creation alone: 500 files (500 per second) > Mixed with transactions: 12567 files (2513 per second) > 12420 read (2484 per second) > 12469 appended (2493 per second) > 13067 deleted (2177 per second) > Deletion alone: 634 files (634 per second) > Mixed with transactions: 12433 files (2486 per second) >=20 > Data: > 80.71 megabytes read (13.45 megabytes per second) > 84.59 megabytes written (14.10 megabytes per second) >=20 > I did this 100 times on my notebook and summed up this. >=20 > root@freedb:/pool/nase # ministat -n *.txt > x alltransactions.txt > + appended-no.txt > * created-no.txt > % deleted-no.txt > # reed-no.txt > N Min Max Median Avg = Stddev > x 100 3571 5000 5000 4690.25 = 435.65125 > + 100 1781 2493 2493 2338.84 = 216.8531 > * 100 1633 2613 2613 2396.59 = 256.53752 > % 100 1633 2613 2613 2396.59 = 256.53752 > # 100 1774 2484 2484 2330.22 = 216.3084 >=20 >=20 > When I check "zpool iostat 1" I see >=20 > root@freedb:/pool/nase # zpool iostat 1 > capacity operations bandwidth > pool alloc free read write read write > ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > pool 10.6M 1.97G 0 8 28 312K > ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > pool 10.6M 1.97G 0 33 0 4.09M > ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > pool 10.6M 1.97G 0 0 0 0 > ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > pool 10.6M 1.97G 0 0 0 0 > ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > pool 10.6M 1.97G 0 0 0 0 > ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > pool 19.6M 1.97G 0 89 0 4.52M > ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- >=20 >=20 > around 30-90 TPS bursts.=20 >=20 > Did they counted this instead? >=20 >=20 > -dennis >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Am 28.05.2013 um 15:02 schrieb Paul Pathiakis: >=20 >> Outperform at "out of the box" testing. ;-) >>=20 >> So, if I have a "desktop" distro like PCBSD, the only thing of = relevance is putting up my own web server???? (Yes, the benchmark showed = PCBSD seriously kicking butt with Apache on static pages.... but why = would I care on a desktop OS?) >>=20 >> Personally, I found the whole thing lacking coherency and relevancy = on just about anything. =20 >>=20 >> Don't get me wrong, I do like the fact that this was done. However, = there are compiler differences (It was noted many times that CLANG was = used and it may have been a detriment but it doesn't go into the how or = why.) and other issues. >>=20 >> There was a benchmark on PostGreSQL, but I didn't see any *BSD = results? >>=20 >> Transactions to a disk? Does this measure the "bundling" effect of = the "groups of transactions" of ZFS? That's a whole lot less = transactions that are sent to disk. (Does anyone know any place where = this can be found? That is, how does the whole "bundling of disk I/O" = go from writing to memory, locking those writes, then sending all the = info in one shot to the disk? This helps: = http://blog.delphix.com/ahl/2012/zfs-fundamentals-transaction-groups/ ) >>=20 >> I was working at a company that had the intention of doing = "electronic asset ingestion and tagging". Basically, take any thing = moved to the front end web servers, copy it to disk, replicate it to = other machines, etc... (maybe not in that order) The whole system was = java based. >>=20 >> This was 3 years ago. I believe I was using Debian V4 (it had just = come out.... I don't recall the names etch, etc) and I took a single = machine and rebuilt it 12 times: OpenSuSe with ext2, ext3, xfs. Debian = with ext2, ext3, xfs. CentOS with ext2, ext3, xfs. FreeBSD 8.1 with = ZFS, UFS2 w/ SU. >>=20 >> Well, the numbers came in and this was all done on the same HP 180 1u = server rebuilt that many times. I withheld the FBSD results as the = development was done on Debian and people were "Linux inclined". The = requisite was for 15000 tpm per machine for I/O. Linux could only get = to 3500. People were pissed and they were looking at 5 years and $20m = in time and development. That's when I put the FBSD results in front of = them..... 75,200 tpm. Now, this was THEIR measurements and THEIR = benchmarks (The Engineering team). The machine was doing nothing but = running flat out on a horrible method of using directory structure to = organize the asset tags... (yeah, ugly) However, ZFS almost didn't care = compared to a traditional filesystem. =20 >>=20 >> So, what it comes down do is simple.... you can benchmark anything = you want with various "authoritative" benchmarks, but in the end, your = benchmark on your data set (aka real world in your world) is the only = thing that matters. >>=20 >> BTW, what happened in the situation I described? Despite, a huge = cost savings and incredible performance.... "We have to use Debian as = we never put any type of automation in place that would allow us to be = able to move from one OS to another"... Yeah, I guess a Systems = Architect (like me) is something that people tend to overlook. System = automation to allow nimble transitions like that are totally overlooked. >>=20 >> Benchmarks are "nice". However, tuning and understanding the = underlying tech and what's it's good for is priceless. Knowing there = are memory management issues, scheduling issues, certain types of I/O on = certain FS that cause it to sing or sob, these are the things that will = make someone invaluable. No one should be a tech bigot. The mantra = should be: "The best tech for the situation". No one should care if = it's BSD, Linux, or Windoze if it's what works best in the situation. >>=20 >> P >>=20 >> PS - When I see how many people are clueless about how much tech is = ripped off from BSD to make other vendors' products just work and then = they slap at BSD.... it's pretty bad. GPLv3? Thank you... there are so = many people going to a "no GPL products in house" policy that there is a = steady increase in BSD and ZFS. I can only hope GPLv4 becomes "If you = use our stuff, we own all the machines and code that our stuff coexists = on" :-) >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> ________________________________ >> From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> >> To: O. Hartmann <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de>=20 >> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org=20 >> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:03 AM >> Subject: Re: New Phoronix performance benchmarks between some Linuxes = and *BSDs >>=20 >>=20 >> outperform at what? >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> adrian >>=20 >> On 28 May 2013 00:08, O. Hartmann <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de> = wrote: >>> Phoronix has emitted another of its "famous" performance tests >>> comparing different flavours of Linux (their obvious favorite OS): >>>=20 >>> = http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=3Darticle&item=3Dbsd_linux_8way&num=3D= 1 >>>=20 >>> It is "impressive, too, to see that PHORONIX did not benchmark the >>> gaming performance - this is done exclusively on the Linux >>> distributions, I guess in the lack of suitable graphics cards at >>> Phronix (although it should be possible to compare the nVidia BLOB >>> performance between each system). >>>=20 >>> Although I'm not much impressed by the way the benchmarks are >>> orchestrated, Phoronix is the only platform known to me providing = those >>> from time to time benchmarks on most recent available operating = systems. >>>=20 >>> Also, the bad performance of ZFS compared to to UFS2 seems to have a >>> very harsh impact on systems were that memory- and performance-hog = ZFS >>> isn't really needed. >>>=20 >>> Surprised and really disappointing (especially for me personally) is >>> the worse performance of the Rodinia benchmark on the BSDs, for what = I >>> try to have deeper look inside to understand the circumstances of = the >>> setups and what this scientific benchmark is supposed to do and >>> measure. >>>=20 >>> But the overall conclusion shown on Phoronix is that what I see at = our >>> department which utilizes some Linux flavours, Ubuntu 12.01 or Suse = and >>> in a majority CentOS (older versions), which all outperform the = several >>> FreeBSd servers I maintain (FreeBSD 9.1-STABLE and FreeBSD >>> 10.0-CURRENT, so to end software compared to some older Linux = kernels). >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" Dipl.-Inform. (FH) Dennis Berger email: db@bsdsystems.de mobile: +491791231509 fon: +494054001817
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47ED9A36-D61D-42AB-B146-2E03197CBF97>