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.
I think I get around 4690+-435 IOPS with 95% confidence. 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 When you I postmark with 25K transactions I get an output like this. (http://fsbench.filesystems.org/bench/postmark-1_5.c) pm>run Creating files...Done Performing transactions..........Done Deleting files...Done Time: 6 seconds total 5 seconds of transactions (5000 per second) 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) Data: 80.71 megabytes read (13.45 megabytes per second) 84.59 megabytes written (14.10 megabytes per second) I did this 100 times on my notebook and summed up this. 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 When I check "zpool iostat 1" I see 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 ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- around 30-90 TPS bursts. Did they counted this instead? -dennis Am 28.05.2013 um 15:02 schrieb Paul Pathiakis: > Outperform at "out of the box" testing. ;-) > > 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?) > > Personally, I found the whole thing lacking coherency and relevancy on just > about anything. > > 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. > > There was a benchmark on PostGreSQL, but I didn't see any *BSD results? > > 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/ ) > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > P > > 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" :-) > > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Adrian Chadd <adr...@freebsd.org> > To: O. Hartmann <ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> > Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:03 AM > Subject: Re: New Phoronix performance benchmarks between some Linuxes and > *BSDs > > > outperform at what? > > > > adrian > > On 28 May 2013 00:08, O. Hartmann <ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: >> Phoronix has emitted another of its "famous" performance tests >> comparing different flavours of Linux (their obvious favorite OS): >> >> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=bsd_linux_8way&num=1 >> >> 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). >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> 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-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" _______________________________________________ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
