Re: ZFS Few Questions

No problem for the most of the MySQL DBAs because consistency is not in their dictionary anyway :) On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Eduardo Morras wrote: > At 19:26 17/11/2011, you wrote: > >> Hello everyone I just had a few questions about ZFS. >> >> Question 3: >> >> Anyone Recommend for MyS

Re: Harddisk i.e. ZFS Performance

And iozone... On Nov 29, 2009 9:31 PM, "Ray Kinsella" wrote: Can I recommend using bonnie++ On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Nikolay Denev wrote: > On 28 Nov, 2009, at 04:... ___ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/m

Re: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance

i mean doubt, shouldn't do mailing before the first coffee :))) On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:13 AM, István wrote: > i see > but there was no debt that it is possible. at least from my side :_) > > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > >> 2009/10/20

Re: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance

i see but there was no debt that it is possible. at least from my side :_) On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > 2009/10/20 István : > > > > therefore i like netpipe runs you can see the performance and the latency > as > > well using the packet size a

Re: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > uhm: > > kristy# netperf -H 192.168.10.2 -p 22113 -l 10 > TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.10.2 > (192.168.10.2) port 0 AF_INET > Recv SendSend > Socket Socket Message Elapsed > Size SizeSize

Re: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance

I guess it is not only for netpipe, it is doing a pretty decent job changing the packet size checking the performance so finally you have an overview about the size, lag, bw I like! :) On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > 2009/10/16 István : > > I see. > >

Re: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance

] On Behalf Of Hongtao Yin > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:52 PM > To: 'István' > Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org > Subject: RE: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance > > Istvan, > > > > I ran newer FreeBSD code 8.0 RC1 this time. By usin

Re: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance

s that FreeBSD TCP performance is worse than > Linux. I got troubles to plot using gnuplot, so here I am attaching the raw > data files. > > The netpipe commands are as follows: > > PC2: #NPtcp > > PC1: #NPtcp �Ch 192.168.1.20 > > > > Regards, > > Hongtao >

Re: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance

use netpipe TCP pls. And graph it. Thanks in advance, Istvan On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Hongtao Yin wrote: > Hi, > > > > I compared TCP performance between FreeBSD and Linux by running test tools > Netperf and Iperf with Intel NIC. > > The kernels are full version and default values are u

Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss...

have you seen the previous mail about 8.0 and debug stuff? you might have overlooked it. yes UFS is not the fastest, it is FAT16, stick to that :) On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:49 PM, S4mmael wrote: > > Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I think > > this has a bit to

Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss...

but if we measure the performance based on feelings we could advertise freebsd: "feels better" do not forget the marketing value :)) On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Kip Macy wrote: > > On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:21 PM, O. Hartmann wrote: > >> Well, since FreeBSD 8.0 started, I realized on several

Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss...

makes no sense to stay with freebsd for zfs: http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/ I think this will not change soon. ZFS is, at this moment, the only > thing that keeps me with FreeBSD. In every other case, serving, number > crunching (oh, we need a lot of I/O performance in those number > crun

Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss...

withdtrac...@#!#@! :) I think that the most interesting opionion these benchmarks tell is > that we are slow on random, threaded I/O operations. I think we need > to investigate more in this direction. > > Attilio > > > -- > Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein >

Re: FreeBSD vs Ubuntu - Discuss...

http://marc.info/?l=freebsd-current&m=125413848303229&w=2 On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Francisco Reyes wrote: > Steven Hartland writes: > > Just noticed the following posted on phoronix: >> >> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd8_ubuntu910&num=1 >> Comments? >> > > Th

Re: Test on 10GBE Intel based network card

what about your sysctls? I would like to see what have you done yet. Here is a previous conversation about that: http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-performance@freebsd.org/msg02293.html Actually I am not aware of the chan

Re: Test on 10GBE Intel based network card

p.tcbhashsize: 512 > net.inet.tcp.hostcache.hashsize: 512 > > > Fabrizio > > > From: István [mailto:lecc...@gmail.com] > Sent: lunedì 3 agosto 2009 12.02 > To: Invernizzi Fabrizio > Cc: Stefan Lambrev; freebsd-performance@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Test

Re: VM sysctl tuning

I guess you can find some useful information here: http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSTuningGuide Please note the difference between 7.2 and all the previous releases. "FreeBSD 7.2+ has improved kernel memory allocation strategy and no tuning may be necessary on systems with more than 2 GB of RAM. " Al

Re: Limiting open port RST response from 247 to 200 packets per second

Hi! l...@test:~$sysctl -a | grep net.inet.icmp.icmplim net.inet.icmp.icmplim: 200 net.inet.icmp.icmplim_output: 1 Regards, Istvan On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Alex Dehaini wrote: > Hi Guys, > > I have some issues with Squid on Freebsd. I am running FreeBSD release 4.9 > and Squid version