> The move to an MPSAFE VFS will help with that a lot, I should think. Do you know if this will find it's way to 5.x in the near future?
> > Also, while on face value this may seem odd, could you try the following > additional variables: > > - Layer the test UFS partition directly over ad0 instead of ad0s1a > - UFS1 vs UFS2 I just tested with UFS1 and had almost the exact same results. > > Finally, in as much as is possible, make sure that the layout of the disks > is approximately the same -- as countless benchmarking papers show, there > are substantial differences (10%+) in I/O throughput depending on where on > the disk surface operations occur. That's one of the reasons to try UFS1 > for the test partition, although not the only one. My tests use the exact same disk layout, and hardware. However, I have had consistent results on all 4 boxes that I have tested on. At this point I'm making the assumption that the poor disk I/O performance on 5.3 isn't a file system issue, but is tied to a larger issue with the Kernel (I know never make assumptions ... :)). In all my testing, I have noticed that 5.3 doesn't appear to release cpu resources even if there isn't any other demand for resources. I would compare it to driveling a car with a governor on it. When I tested with 4.11, it allocated considerably more resources. I do hope that the 5.x issues are resolved soon so that I can deploy may production servers on it rather than starting on 4 and them making the big switch. I will probably test 6 for the fun of it. Thanks! --Nick Pavlica _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"