On Mar 21, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Ulrich Spörlein wrote: > On Sat, 20.03.2010 at 12:17:33 -0600, Scott Long wrote: >> Windows has a MAXPHYS equivalent of 1M. Linux has an equivalent of an >> odd number less than 512k. For the purpose of benchmarking against these >> OS's, having comparable capabilities is essential; Linux easily beats FreeBSD >> in the silly-i/o-test because of the MAXPHYS difference (though FreeBSD >> typically >> stomps linux in real I/O because of vastly better latency and caching >> algorithms). >> I'm fine with raising MAXPHYS in production once the problems are addressed. > > Hi Scott, > > while I'm sure that most of the FreeBSD admins are aware of "silly" > benchmarks where Linux I/O seems to dwarf FreeBSD, do you have some > pointers regarding your statement that FreeBSD triumphs for real-world > I/O loads? Can this be simulated using iozone, bonnie, etc? More > importantly, is there a way to do this file system independently? >
iozone and bonnie tend to be good at testing serialized I/O latency; each read and write is serialized without any buffering. My experience is that they give mixed results, sometimes they favor freebsd, sometime linux, sometimes it's a wash, all because they are so sensitive to latency. And that's where is also gets hard to have a "universal" benchmark; what are you really trying to model, and how does that model reflect your actual workload? Are you running a single-instance, single threaded application that is sensitive to latency? Are you running a multi-instance/multi-threaded app that is sensitive to bandwidth? Are you operating on a single file, or on a large tree of files, or on a raw device? Are you sharing a small number of relatively stable file descriptors, or constantly creating and deleting files and truncating space?_______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
