It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that ext3 is better albeit bursty for writes. That's the Linux aggressive write-behind and ext2/ext3 for you in a nutshell. It's also quite likely true that in many cases that reads and I/O scheduling is a lot better in Linux.
If you have time to run some benchmarks, using something like dt on a FreeBSD raw partition with lots of small sequential writes and using the (now deprecated) 'raw' bound devices in fc5 might get more of an apple-apple. On 5/16/07, Randy Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Matthew Jacob spaketh thusly: -}filesystem? ext3? Correct. -} -}I want one of these failing machines *in my lab*. -} -}On 5/14/07, Randy Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -}> On Fri, 11 May 2007, Matthew Jacob spaketh thusly: -}> -}> -}Time frame to resolution involves getting a machine into my lab that -}> -}evidences the poor performance and the time to sort out what the -}> -}problem is and fix it. Remote access doesn't work for me on this one -}> -}(contact me offline as to why). -}> -}> Hey Matthew, -}> -}> FWIW, I installed fedora core 5 on the box. The difference was significant. -}> Writes, though bursty, increased significantly. Reads increased by 1-2 -}> orders -}> of magnitude. I've attached the output of blogbench for fc5 FWIW. -}> -}> Being new to all this, what would be the next step? Should I file a bug -}> report? Or perhaps I should be asking what your timeline is? All I have to -}> offer for help is remote access, which in this case doesn't work for you, or -}> perhaps testing as my C skills are fairly pathetic. ;> -- Randy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 765.983.1283 <*> Rain puts a hole in stone because of its constancy, not its force. - H. Joseph Gerber
_______________________________________________ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
