Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:40:49 -0700 From: Frank Jahnke <jahnke@sonatabio.com> To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Subject: Terrible hme throughput Message-ID: <1159404049.5199.31.camel@pinot.fmjassoc.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> fj> There's one or two factors of two left to be found. Maybe it > fj> is the Sparc disadvantage for these sorts of calculations > > no, I don't think there are any more factors of two to find. > > 300MHz Pentium, Linux with gcc: 1.5MByte/s > 440MHz UltraSPARC II, Solaris with Sun C compiler: 2.3MByte/s > 500MHz UltraSPARC II, FreeBSD with gcc: 1.0MByte/s > > try a slow PeeCee and see if you get similar results. I think it's > about right: divide performance in half as penalty for trying to use > gcc on anything but i386. I had no idea that there was so much overhead with scp. I tried scp to localhost on my main workstation (dual Athlons, 15K SCSIs, FreeBSD) and got about 7MB/s. That is a hit of about a factor of 10 for using scp from the native disk rate. I will indeed try it on a slow PC soon: I am bring up a dual Pentium III server in a week so so. > > My friend who makes big ftp servers with dm_crypt encrypted disks > reports results roughly in the same ballpark: 40MByte/s throughput > IDE-RAID<->GigEthernet with encryption, 90MByte/s without, on modern > 2 - 3GHz PeeCees. In that case it's just decryption rather than > ssh+sshd running on the same CPU, so divide that throughput in half, > and you are in the same MB per MHz ballpark as the other results. I > think it is probably working properly. I think you are right. Getting about 1MB/s on a 300MHz UltraSPARC II with gcc seems pretty good, actually. I figured I would get about half the disk rate, so about 7MB/s, give or take. Clearly that will not happen. Sorry that I can't keep the thread going, but I don't subscribe to the list, and I've not been copied on the messages. Frank
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1159404049.5199.31.camel>