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 what?
UFS blocks? MAXPHYS blocks?
___
what exactly this option do?
read_max 32 what?
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
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 what?
UFS blocks? MAXPHYS blocks?
UFS blocks.
The default is
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 just a few days
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
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Win2003 R2NTFSRAID10-158725113642511990
Ubuntu Server 7.10ext3RAID10-1512960167
3611472562
Ubuntu Server 7.10JFSRAID10-15131641676638
4855
Ubuntu Server 7.10Reiser3RAID10-15
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 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
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.
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 just
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
[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 on the
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
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
___
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
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, open,
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
rather not. all
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 use
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
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
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 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 use
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 been
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 the value
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
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 stolen.
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 on the last name, it just
27 matches
Mail list logo
