Matthew Dillon wrote:
> I ran blockbench on a HAMMER partition and on a UFS partition and
> got some rather interesting results.
>
> I fully expected HAMMER's write performance to be bad compared to
UFS,
> because HAMMER is still double-buffering its data. Indeed, as the
> test began UFS seemed to be outdoing HAMMER. But as the number
of files
> grew and the kernel started to have to recycle vnodes and
buffers, UFS's
> performance went completely to hell while HAMMER was able to
maintain good
> throughput. Ths basic blog benchmark creates, reads, and writes
around
> 20,000 files and goes for a lot of parallelism.
>
> I don't know why UFS's write performance went to hell.. it pretty
much
> died completely after a very promising start. But even ignoring that
> as some sort of implementation fluke the read performance numbers
speak
> for themselves.
>
> I haven't run bonnie++ yet. I think UFS still does very well vs
HAMMER
> on saturated single-file I/O.
Would be nice to see some UFS benchmarks of FreeBSD, to make sure it's
not an issue with DragonFly's UFS "implementation". Too sad that I don't
have UFS anymore (only ZFS), so I could do it myself. And then, the
benchmark should be done on one and the same machine. But probably it's
wise to wait a few days for benchmarks :)
Regards,
Michael
