Hi mark, i just happened to lurk around and read the thread.
Did you try to run iozone on both systems?
Benchmarks like this are designed to test performance
of filesystems on a rather wide domain of all related values
(block size, file size, etc...)
It also produces graphs so that someone can
JoaoBR wrote:
I am not convinced that this kind of test is of any value for comparing
systems at all because there are too much factors involved - unless the
competitors are installed on identical hardware. On the other side I think it
is usefull to compare tweaked settings on a particular
Pieter de Goeje wrote:
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 11:38, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
In fact if you note that the PIII HW *can* actually do 700MB/s, it
suggests that your HW is capable of considerably more than 900MB/s -
given that opteron's have excellent cpu to memory bandwidth, and the
speed of
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 07:38, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
I was however trying to point out that as your machine is different from
mine (opteron and ddr*400* as opposed to PIII and pc133), the fact that
it is faster is not telling us anything about whether releng_6
performance on cached file
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Exactly, that's why I did the comparison - I think you missed the part
where I mentioned the 2 systems were *identical* with respect to cpus,
memory, mobo - in fact even the power supplies are identical too!
So I assume your benchmark measured the performance of the
In response to Mark Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
JoaoBR wrote:
I am not convinced that this kind of test is of any value for comparing
systems at all because there are too much factors involved - unless the
competitors are installed on identical hardware. On the other side I think
it
A few more tests with a slightly improved version of the program
(attached): We (i.e FreeBSD) do noticeably better with bigger block sizes.
Cheers
Mark
Gentoo - 2.6.18-gentoo-r3:
---
$ ./readtest /data0/dump/file 8192 0
random reads: 10 of: 8192 bytes elapsed: 1.2698s
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Pieter de Goeje wrote:
It would be more interesting to see how random access to a (cached)
file performs in Linux vs FreeBSD, which seems a more logical pattern
for a database.
Agreed, and good point, I'll knock up a simple program to do random
and/or sequential
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 22:20, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Pieter de Goeje wrote:
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 11:38, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
In fact if you note that the PIII HW *can* actually do 700MB/s, it
suggests that your HW is capable of considerably more than 900MB/s -
given that
Pieter de Goeje wrote:
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Pieter de Goeje wrote:
Copying /dev/zero to /dev/null yields more than 5GB/sec on a simple 2Ghz
Athlon64. It imagine there are quite a few extra things done when copying
On second thought, this is wrong because /dev/zero isn't a real
Pieter de Goeje wrote:
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 11:38, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
In fact if you note that the PIII HW *can* actually do 700MB/s, it
suggests that your HW is capable of considerably more than 900MB/s -
given that opteron's have excellent cpu to memory bandwidth, and the
speed of
On Thu, 2006-Dec-21 23:22:38 +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Pieter de Goeje wrote:
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 11:38, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
In fact if you note that the PIII HW *can* actually do 700MB/s, it
suggests that your HW is capable of considerably more than 900MB/s -
given that opteron's
Has anyone tried these tests with 4.x? Well, i did, and i was surprised
how good the performance is, it gave me the highest number of all tests,
even compared to much faster HW. Although this is all different
hardware, it seems like the performance drops the higher the version of
FreeBSD is,
Oliver Fromme wrote:
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Exactly, that's why I did the comparison - I think you missed the part
where I mentioned the 2 systems were *identical* with respect to cpus,
memory, mobo - in fact even the power supplies are identical too!
So I assume your benchmark measured
Bill Moran wrote:
In response to Mark Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
JoaoBR wrote:
I am not convinced that this kind of test is of any value for comparing
systems at all because there are too much factors involved - unless the
competitors are installed on identical hardware. On the other side I
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 22:05, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
In the process of investigating performance in another area I happened
to be measuring sequential cached reads (in a fairly basic manner):
$ dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/file bs=8k count=10 # create file
81920 bytes transferred
JoaoBR wrote:
hum, look my releng_6:
# dd of=/dev/null if=/c/c1/file bs=8k
10+0 records in
10+0 records out
81920 bytes transferred in 1.017492 secs (805116851 bytes/sec)
# dd of=/dev/null if=/c/c1/file bs=8k
10+0 records in
10+0 records out
81920 bytes
JoaoBR wrote:
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 22:05, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
$ dd of=/dev/null if=/tmp/file bs=32k # read it
81920 bytes transferred in 1.801944 secs (454620117 bytes/sec)
hum, look my releng_6:
# dd of=/dev/null if=/c/c1/file bs=32k
81920 bytes
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 07:37, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
JoaoBR wrote:
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 22:05, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
$ dd of=/dev/null if=/tmp/file bs=32k # read it
81920 bytes transferred in 1.801944 secs (454620117 bytes/sec)
hum, look my releng_6:
JoaoBR wrote:
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 07:37, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
JoaoBR wrote:
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 22:05, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
$ dd of=/dev/null if=/tmp/file bs=32k # read it
81920 bytes transferred in 1.801944 secs (454620117 bytes/sec)
hum, look my
JoaoBR wrote:
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 22:05, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
In the process of investigating performance in another area I happened
to be measuring sequential cached reads (in a fairly basic manner):
$ dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/file bs=8k count=10 # create file
81920 bytes
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 11:38, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
In fact if you note that the PIII HW *can* actually do 700MB/s, it
suggests that your HW is capable of considerably more than 900MB/s -
given that opteron's have excellent cpu to memory bandwidth, and the
speed of your memory!
Indeed!
In the process of investigating performance in another area I happened
to be measuring sequential cached reads (in a fairly basic manner):
$ dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/file bs=8k count=10 # create file
81920 bytes transferred in 4.849394 secs (168928321 bytes/sec)
$ dd of=/dev/null
On 20/12/2006 12:05 PM, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
In the process of investigating performance in another area I happened
to be measuring sequential cached reads (in a fairly basic manner):
$ dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/file bs=8k count=10 # create file
81920 bytes transferred in 4.849394
What does the memory-related stats from top show you? Did you have any
other memory intensive applications running at the time? A random
example from one of my systems (1GB RAM):
Thanks, good point - but no - absolutely nothing (machine is freshly
booted, and the only thing running is
25 matches
Mail list logo
