:> It would be interesting to see a blogbench comparison between UFS
:> and ZFS on the same hw/disk.
:
:
:I'll do it, just tell me how do you want to run the tests.
:
:The system params are:
:
:8GB Memory
:2x72GB SCSI HDD
:2x3.4Ghz Xeon
:Overall: Dell Poweredge 1850. With no raid installed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/6/10 7:20 PM, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> It would be interesting to see a blogbench comparison between UFS
> and ZFS on the same hw/disk.
I'll do it, just tell me how do you want to run the tests.
The system params are:
8GB Memory
2x72GB
:All of these tests have been apples vs. oranges for years.
:
:The following seems to be true, though:
:
:a) FreeBSD sequential write performance in UFS has always been less than
:optimal.
If there's no read activity sequential write performance should be
maximal with UFS. The keyphrase
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/5/10 2:43 AM, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
> On 5 June 2010 00:58, Adam PAPAI wrote:
>
>> How can I tune my disk to make it faster? Is it possible? What is the
>> reason of the really slow I/O with more than 4 threads? What do you
>> recommend me to d
2010/6/5 Kostik Belousov
>
> On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 07:41:23PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote:
> > 2010/6/5 Matthew Jacob
> > >
> > > All of these tests have been apples vs. oranges for years.
> > >
> > > The following seems to be true, though:
> > >
> > > a) FreeBSD sequential write performance in UF
On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 07:41:23PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2010/6/5 Matthew Jacob
> >
> > All of these tests have been apples vs. oranges for years.
> >
> > The following seems to be true, though:
> >
> > a) FreeBSD sequential write performance in UFS has always been less than
> > optimal.
>
2010/6/5 Matthew Jacob
>
> All of these tests have been apples vs. oranges for years.
>
> The following seems to be true, though:
>
> a) FreeBSD sequential write performance in UFS has always been less than
> optimal.
>
> b) Linux sequential write performance in just about any filesystem has alwa
On Saturday 05 June 2010 01:58:35 Adam PAPAI wrote:
> Why FreeBSD is supreme with 1 and 2 thread. And why is it 2 and 3 times
> slower with 4-8-16-32 threads compared to Debian? The first two tests (1
> thread and 2 thread) showed me that FreeBSD is supreme in I/O, but later
> tests showed me, that
All of these tests have been apples vs. oranges for years.
The following seems to be true, though:
a) FreeBSD sequential write performance in UFS has always been less than
optimal.
b) Linux sequential write performance in just about any filesystem has
always been "impressive". But that "impr
On 6/5/10 12:26 AM, Adam PAPAI wrote:
On 6/5/10 3:36 AM, Bruce Cran wrote:
Some quick tests show that ufs does do rather poorly on my system too. I have
the following filesystems setup:
/var : ufs with softupdates
/usr/obj : zfs with checksums disabled
/usr/src : zfs with compression enabled
/h
/usr/src : zfs with compression enabled
/usr/src : 386.3MB/s
>>> Do I understand it well? It seems that zfs with compression enabled on
>>> /usr/src with 8KB block size and 16 threads performs 386.3MB/s which
>>> is about 6 times better than debian5? I am thinking about this image
>>> ht
> /var : ufs with softupdates
> /usr/obj : zfs with checksums disabled
> /usr/src : zfs with compression enabled
> /home : zfs with compression disabled and checksums enabled
>
> I ran a test with a blocksize of 8KB and 16 threads.
>
> /var : 25.2MB/s
> /usr/obj : 64.8MB/s
> /usr/src : 386.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/5/10 1:04 PM, Bruce Cran wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 12:50:15 +0200
> Stefan Miklosovic wrote:
>
>>> /var : ufs with softupdates
>>> /usr/obj : zfs with checksums disabled
>>> /usr/src : zfs with compression enabled
>>> /home : zfs with compre
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 12:50:15 +0200
Stefan Miklosovic wrote:
> > /var : ufs with softupdates
> > /usr/obj : zfs with checksums disabled
> > /usr/src : zfs with compression enabled
> > /home : zfs with compression disabled and checksums enabled
> >
> > I ran a test with a blocksize of 8KB and 16 t
On 6/5/10 3:36 AM, Bruce Cran wrote:
> Some quick tests show that ufs does do rather poorly on my system too. I have
> the following filesystems setup:
>
> /var : ufs with softupdates
> /usr/obj : zfs with checksums disabled
> /usr/src : zfs with compression enabled
> /home : zfs with compressi
On Saturday 05 June 2010 00:58:35 Adam PAPAI wrote:
> Why FreeBSD is supreme with 1 and 2 thread. And why is it 2 and 3 times
> slower with 4-8-16-32 threads compared to Debian? The first two tests (1
> thread and 2 thread) showed me that FreeBSD is supreme in I/O, but later
> tests showed me, tha
On 5 June 2010 00:58, Adam PAPAI wrote:
> How can I tune my disk to make it faster? Is it possible? What is the
> reason of the really slow I/O with more than 4 threads? What do you
> recommend me to do? Why is it damn slow with 8K blocksize?
Does linux still have async disk writes by default?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi List,
A week ago I started to benchmark Linux vs. FreeBSD on a Dell Poweredge
1850.
CPU: 2 x 3.4Ghz Xeon (Dual Core)
Memory: 8GB (4x2)
Disk: 1 x SEAGATE ST373454LC D404 (SCSI)
FreeBSD kazoku 8.0-RELEASE-p3 FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE-p3 #0: Tue May 25
20
18 matches
Mail list logo
