2008/12/8 Wojciech Puchar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
>>> what exactly this option do?
>>>
>>> read_max 32
>>>
>>> UFS blocks? MAXPHYS blocks?
>>
>> UFS blocks.
>>
>> The default is 8 == 128 kB == MAXPHYS.
>>
>>
> so you have to raise MAXPHYS too.
No, it's orthogonal to MAXPHYS.
what exactly this option do?
read_max 32
UFS blocks? MAXPHYS blocks?
UFS blocks.
The default is 8 == 128 kB == MAXPHYS.
so you have to raise MAXPHYS too.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/f
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>>> changed it to 1MB everywhere.
>>
>> I've found that increasing vfs.read_max increases read performance
>> quite a bit in bonnie++ benchmarks.
>>
>> sysctl vfs.read_max=32
>
> what exactly this option do?
>
> read_max 32
>
> UFS blocks? MAXPHYS blocks?
UFS blocks.
Th
changed it to 1MB everywhere.
I've found that increasing vfs.read_max increases read performance quite a
bit in bonnie++ benchmarks.
sysctl vfs.read_max=32
what exactly this option do?
read_max 32
UFS blocks? MAXPHYS blocks?
___
freebsd-questio
Wojciech Puchar schrieb:
it's faster on that benchmark. but i think low MAXPHYS may be a problem.
i changed it to 1MB everywhere.
I've found that increasing vfs.read_max increases read performance quite
a bit in bonnie++ benchmarks.
sysctl vfs.read_max=32
Uwe
_
ZFS was very good, but not so much when compared to Linux file systems,
ZFS in your benchmart is similar to UFS.
Look at the read speed.
it's faster on that benchmark. but i think low MAXPHYS may be a problem.
i changed it to 1MB everywhere.
___
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>>
>> Win2003 R2NTFSRAID10-158725113642511990
>> Ubuntu Server 7.10ext3RAID10-1512960167
>> 3611472562
>> Ubuntu Server 7.10JFSRAID10-15131641676638
>> 4855
>> Ubuntu Server 7.10Reiser3
Win2003 R2 NTFSRAID10-15 87 25 113 6425
11990
Ubuntu Server 7.10 ext3RAID10-15 129 60 167 36114
72562
Ubuntu Server 7.10 JFS RAID10-15 131 64 167 6638
4855
Ubuntu Server 7.10 Reiser3 RAID1
Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 12:20:49PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I don't even know if this has been done before, nor do I know for sure
>>> if it's a sound comparison. Never the less, someone posted, in response
>>> to someone else here ju
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 19:36:45 +0100 (CET)
Wojciech Puchar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The userland win32 API might be rather unpleasant but I was
> > surprised to learn to driver interface in the kernel is actually
> > quite nice, and
>
> whatever ideas/solutions microsoft do it's f..ked up or s
The userland win32 API might be rather unpleasant but I was surprised
to learn to driver interface in the kernel is actually quite nice, and
whatever ideas/solutions microsoft do it's f..ked up or stolen.
the stolen case is actually better :)
isn't too dissimilar to FreeBSD in some ways. In
t
On Friday 05 December 2008 17:45:37 Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 02:26:50PM +0100, Mel wrote:
> > Well, one can find stories like this of course:
> > http://www.postgis.org/documentation/casestudies/globexplorer/
> >
> > But I'm sure one can find some of the contrary. It does show t
On Dec 5, 2008 9:34am, Bruce Cran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 04:30:20 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm just curious to see how it looks for my own sanity's sake. At
> work, someone got the grand idea that we should move to Windoze
> embedded (CE and XPe) and it's bee
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 02:26:50PM +0100, Mel wrote:
>
> Well, one can find stories like this of course:
> http://www.postgis.org/documentation/casestudies/globexplorer/
>
> But I'm sure one can find some of the contrary. It does show the value of the
> benchmark: Is it economically viable to us
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 04:30:20 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm just curious to see how it looks for my own sanity's sake. At
> work, someone got the grand idea that we should move to Windoze
> embedded (CE and XPe) and it's been quite discouraging I must say,
> though I must admit, it's nice to
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 12:20:49PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don't even know if this has been done before, nor do I know for sure
> > if it's a sound comparison. Never the less, someone posted, in response
> > to someone else here just a few days ago, so
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 01:09:36PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >a Windows system it's the virtual memory management, with the same
> >amount of RAM Windows swaps a *lot* more.
>
> it may be not VM subsystem but memory usage of windoze software. or both.
>
> again - it's too different to be be
Just for the record, I believe that "those who like living in a world
where they are allowed to use their brain" use whatever OS gets the job
done for a particular task or task set.
yes it means that. that's why they don't use windows as it's useless for
them
__
Odhiambo Washington wrote:
> No one in their right senses would spend time benchmarking FreeBSD (or any
> Unix variant) against Windows (oh, which version?). It's a waste of time.
> Let those who use Windows use it and those who like living in a world where
> they are allowed to use their brains
On Friday 05 December 2008 13:58:18 Jerry wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 13:11:22 +0100 (CET)
>
> Wojciech Puchar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> tools like bonnie++, blogbench and postmark under cygwin and the
> >> results are abysmal. It might be due to cygwin, and it might not.
> >> I've used
> >
>
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 13:11:22 +0100 (CET)
Wojciech Puchar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> tools like bonnie++, blogbench and postmark under cygwin and the
>> results are abysmal. It might be due to cygwin, and it might not.
>> I've used
>
>rather not. all cygwin do is wrapping calls like read, lseek
tools like bonnie++, blogbench and postmark under cygwin and the results
are abysmal. It might be due to cygwin, and it might not. I've used
rather not. all cygwin do is wrapping calls like read, lseek, open, write,
close to windoze calls.
Windows Enterprise Server 2003.
You'll probably not
a Windows system it's the virtual memory management, with the same
amount of RAM Windows swaps a *lot* more.
it may be not VM subsystem but memory usage of windoze software. or both.
again - it's too different to be benchmarked
___
freebsd-questions@
No one in their right senses would spend time benchmarking FreeBSD (or any
Unix variant) against Windows (oh, which version?). It's a waste of time.
exactly what i meant.
windows agains wine under FreeBSD?
cygwin under windows against FreeBSD?
Let those who use Windows use it and those who
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't even know if this has been done before, nor do I know for sure
> if it's a sound comparison. Never the less, someone posted, in response
> to someone else here just a few days ago, some very nice benchmarks
> provided by Kris ?Kenneway? I could be wrong o
What I find mist glaring when one moves from a Linux / FreeBSD system to
a Windows system it's the virtual memory management, with the same
amount of RAM Windows swaps a *lot* more.
Regarding the usability, it's clear that they target different people,
as Windows if mainly used by non-IT people ..
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Wojciech Puchar <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm just curious to see how it looks for my own sanity's sake. At work,
>>
>
> yes windows is much faster and much easier to use. it was told so many
> times on adverts and you still not understand that?!
>
> there are
I'm just curious to see how it looks for my own sanity's sake. At work,
yes windows is much faster and much easier to use. it was told so many
times on adverts and you still not understand that?!
there are just strange people there that want to still use unix.
28 matches
Mail list logo
