> > > > I just got 49194139 bytes/sec reading a large file (~10GB) on FreeBSD. > > > > Linux on the same machine could only manage 35741200 bytes/sec. > > >=20 > > > Which controller, kernel, and file system are you using ? > >=20 > > nforce4-ultra Seagate 7200rpm SATA > > 6.0 FFS aka UFS > > UFS on Linux ? > I'm pretty sure your benchmark only shows that Linux' implementation of UFS > is weaker than FreeBSD's, which is not surprising.
Linux: 2.6.16 and the default penguinix filesystem FreeBSD read the exact same file from Linux's fs at 37194917 bytes/sec. So FreeBSD can read files off a Linux fs faster than Linux can. Linux refuses to mount the UFS fs. This wasn't intended to be a "BSD is better than Linux" thing. The point was that reading a file from a filesystem isn't necessarily slow, if the fs lays things out to avoid a lot of seeking. Which is a fairly minor part of the discussion, more of a BTW thing. > > > > The biggest disk speed problem today for SATA is the lack of NCQ supp= > ort. > > > > Developers are having trouble getting info on how to access NCQ for > > > > various controllers. Thus, this is an area where an open-source SATA > > > > controller could help significantly. > > >=20 > > > This market is taken or will be in the near future, at least at the > > > low-end : > >=20 > > low end vaporware? > > SiliconImage chipsets are not vaporware. Also, what is in the pipeline now > should be available for sale a few months from now, so I would not count > AHCI as vaporware either. "or will be in the near future" sounded like vaporware. Has SiliconImage gotten their act together? Some of their SATA chips are buggy. Luckily the one I have is merely very slow. (2 drives together total 40 MB/s dd-ing sequential sectors from the raw device, no buffer cache, no filesystem. Compared to the nf4u which does 65-70MB *per drive* running 4 drives at once. Same make&model drives) > > Build products that help FOSS, not products that help bill. > > I'd rather build products that help F/OSS and sell well at the same > time. Yes. > Antivirus servers running on F/OSS prove that F/OSS is superior in > terms of security than proprietary software from Redmond. I do not > see how this helps WHG III. If you help the morons keep the virus away from the virus servers, they will continue to run virus server. > People started > using Windows when F/OSS was not an option. Unix has been around far longer than virus server. Unix has never, even in the early days, had the level of problems that virus server has. > Whole companies cannot > make the switch from proprietary (especially Windows, not UNIX) > to F/OSS Proprietary UNIX is not a problem. Having source is better, certainly. but proprietary UNIX doesn't create massive amounts of problems, the companies that sell it aren't constantly being hauled into court for illegal business practices, etc. etc. etc. > Let's help them and > make money at the same time. Help them migrate away from virus server, yes. Help them keep virus server limping along, no. _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
