Chad Perrin wrote: > On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 12:20:49PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I don't even know if this has been done before, nor do I know for sure >>> if it's a sound comparison. Never the less, someone posted, in response >>> to someone else here just a few days ago, some very nice benchmarks >>> provided by Kris ?Kenneway? I could be wrong on the last name, it just >>> seems to me that's a last name I've seen with Kris frequently (my >>> apologies Kris if I'm wrong). Using the URL that the other poster, >>> posted, I poked around the other *.html files in that directory, but did >>> not find any with FreeBSD pitted against windows. >>> >>> I'm just curious to see how it looks for my own sanity's sake. At work, >>> someone got the grand idea that we should move to Windoze embedded (CE >>> and XPe) and it's been quite discouraging I must say, though I must >>> admit, it's nice to actually know why Windows is ugly underneath. From a >>> programming perspective, it's just not simplistic. Anyway, I digress, >>> I'm just curious to see how things compare to Windows on similar >>> benchmarks to what Kris provided if its ever been done. >> I've done some benchmarking of Windows file system IO (NTFS) using known >> tools like bonnie++, blogbench and postmark under cygwin and the results >> are abysmal. It might be due to cygwin, and it might not. I've used >> Windows Enterprise Server 2003. >> >> You'll probably not find any difference in computational (numeric) tasks >> and fairly bad results in tasks that do a lot of system work. > > While the usefulness of such benchmarks may be suspect, I'd still be > interested in seeing your results.
I have a large spreadsheet full of them, but here's a selection. The benchmark is bonnie++: Win2003 R2 NTFS RAID10-15 87 25 113 6425 11990 Ubuntu Server 7.10 ext3 RAID10-15 129 60 167 36114 72562 Ubuntu Server 7.10 JFS RAID10-15 131 64 167 6638 4855 Ubuntu Server 7.10 Reiser3 RAID10-15 130 60 159 30307 35101 Ubuntu Server 7.10 XFS RAID10-15 104 62 164 39 10 FreeBSD 7 UFS+SU RAID10-15 109 43 111 36551 99999 FreeBSD 7 UFS+GJ RAID10-15 50 28 103 52460 46604 FreeBSD 7 ZFS RAID10-15 95 63 180 40522 20260 The first three columns describe the system & RAID (e.g. RAID10-15 means RAID10 created from 4 15 kRPM drives), the next three are write/rewrite/read speed in MB/s, the last two are random files created/deleted. I hope the mailer doesn't destroy the formatting too much. This was on IBM ServeRAID 8k, 256 M BBU cache. (ZFS RAID was not used). FreeBSD UFS generally achieved low performance but it doesn't surprise me - I'd say its disk IO has a lot of performance problems right now. ZFS was very good, but not so much when compared to Linux file systems, especially for writing. I believe XFS was broken in that version of Linux so file creation & deletion was garbage - it's "normal" in more recent versions. File systems were left at default except noatime was turned on where available. One thing where Linux's ext3 really shines is concurrent IO - blogbench (not present in the above table) was really bad in all other OS & file system combination, so after all my results (I have > 1000 of them), I'm really hoping for an ext3/4 port to FreeBSD :)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
