* David Sze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> super-smack select-key
> 5.4-RELEASE ~20,000 queries/second
> 6.0-CURRENT ~24,000 queries/second
> CentOS w/async ~36,000 queries/second
> CentOS w/sync ~26,000 queries/second
Uh, this should be an entirely cached set of reads, why does mounting
sync reduce performance this much? Does FreeBSD see a similar boost
with async mounts?
> super-smack update-select
> 5.4-RELEASE ~4,000 queries/second
> 6.0-CURRENT ~4,500 queries/second
> CentOS w/async ~7,500 queries/second
> CentOS w/sync ~750 queries/second
Is this even relevent? Async is by far the most common setup on Linux,
one which seems very stable and safe, especially on XFS/Reiser. Of
course if FreeBSD can't match Linux/async performance, but still perform
like this on a potentially safer sync mount, that's fine by me, but I'm
having trouble buying that select-key performance. Even standalone
multi-second and non-concurrent selects demonstrate this 30-40% lower
performance than Linux on the same hardware.
--
Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst
http://hur.st/
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
