On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 02:49:17PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: > Bill Moran wrote: > >In response to Ivan Voras <ivo...@freebsd.org>: > > > >>Thomas Backman wrote: > >>>On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:47 AM, O. Hartmann wrote: > >>> > >>>>I'm just wondering what's wrong with FreeBSD 8.0/amd64 when I read the > >>>>Benchmarks on Phoronix.org's website. Especially FreeBSD's threaded I/O > >>>>shows in contrast to all claims that have been to be improoved the > >>>>opposite. > >>>Corrected link: > >>>http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd8_benchmarks&num=1 > >>> > >>>And yeah, quite honestly: disk scheduling in FreeBSD appears to suck... > >>>The only reason I'm not switching from Linux. :( > > > >"All operating systems were left with their default options during the > >installation process..." > > > >It's common knowledge that the default value for vfs.read_max is non- > >optimal for most hardware and that significant performance improvements > >can be made in most cases by raising it. > > On the other hand, random IO is negatively influenced by readahead :)
Parallel Random I/O gives better results on Raid 5 than a single sequential read :-) I also found FreeBSD UFS with Softupdates handling directories with many small files much better than Linux and ReiserFS (same hardware) - at least a simple ls returned much quicker on FreeBSD (factor 5 to 10). So it is always a matter of what you intend to do with the filesystem - is it for logging, for mailserver-storage, for database usage, for fileserver, webserver etc. (with or without changing atime), with redundancy (raid 1, 5, 10) or using zfs, etc. With FreeBSD we have a system that works ok out of the box, but for real-world usage needs some tuning to be optimised for the specific task. Regards, Holger _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
