Re: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0

2007-03-04 Thread Bruce Evans
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, dima wrote: I think you're quite OK with dd. I do believe you'll get a comparable results for cp setting "noatime" option in mount(8)s. As you were told, the default mount mode is noasync which is "synchronous metadata + asynchronous data". But FreeBSD still updates metadat

Re: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0

2007-03-04 Thread dima
> The last days I tried to figure out why some of my lab's FreeBSD boxes > and also mine at home seem to be outperformed by some Linux setups > around here and I saw something interesting. > > On my lab's FreeBSD 6.2/i386 box (ASUS P4P800, ICH5 with two SATA 150 > ports, two SATA 300 drives att

Re: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0

2007-03-04 Thread O. Hartmann
Mike Tancsa wrote: > At 04:38 AM 3/2/2007, O. Hartmann wrote: >> The last days I tried to figure out why some of my lab's FreeBSD >> boxes and also mine at home seem to be outperformed by some Linux >> setups around here and I saw something interesting. >> >> On my lab's FreeBSD 6.2/i386 box (ASUS

Re: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0

2007-03-04 Thread Bruce Evans
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Alexander Leidinger wrote: In FreeBSD we have 3 types, not 2. We have "sync", "noasync" (default) and "async". Are you sure? 2 independent flags give 4 states. I think the flags are not completely independent, but sync doesn't cancel async in all cases (partly because of

Re: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0

2007-03-04 Thread Robert Watson
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, O. Hartmann wrote: On my lab's FreeBSD 6.2/i386 box (ASUS P4P800, ICH5 with two SATA 150 ports, two SATA 300 drives attached) I copied big files (~ 5GB) from one drive to another while the box didn't do anything else than copying. I watched the copy process via 'systat -vms

Re: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0

2007-03-03 Thread Ted Mittelstaedt
- Original Message - From: "Cheffo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: ; "O. Hartmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 3:38 AM Subject: Re: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0 > Hi, &

Re: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0

2007-03-03 Thread Alexander Leidinger
Quoting Alan Amesbury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:56:04 -0600): > Looking at /usr/include/sys/mount.h, I see that there are two flags > defined: MNT_SYNCHRONOUS and MNT_ASYNC. I'm not sure why both flags > exist, but suspect the former was added so you could mount UFS/FFS/UFS2 > fil

Re: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0

2007-03-02 Thread Bruce Evans
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Brooks Davis wrote: Also, you should time the actual copy and do the math to verify that vmstat is actually producing valid results. It's possible there's a bug in vmstat or the underlying statistics it uses. There is certainly a bug in the underlying statistics. For ATA

Re: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0

2007-03-02 Thread Alan Amesbury
O. Hartmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If SYNC is default how can you explain this: > > [12:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# mount > /dev/ad4s3a on / (ufs, local, synchronous) > devfs on /dev (devfs, local) > /dev/ad4s3d on /tmp (ufs, local, soft-updates) > /dev/ad4s3f on /usr (ufs, local, soft-updates) >

Re: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0

2007-03-02 Thread Mike Tancsa
At 04:38 AM 3/2/2007, O. Hartmann wrote: The last days I tried to figure out why some of my lab's FreeBSD boxes and also mine at home seem to be outperformed by some Linux setups around here and I saw something interesting. On my lab's FreeBSD 6.2/i386 box (ASUS P4P800, ICH5 with two SATA 150

Re: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0

2007-03-02 Thread Eric Anderson
On 03/02/07 09:28, Brooks Davis wrote: On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 10:38:35AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote: The last days I tried to figure out why some of my lab's FreeBSD boxes and also mine at home seem to be outperformed by some Linux setups around here and I saw something interesting. On my lab'

Re: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0

2007-03-02 Thread Brooks Davis
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 10:38:35AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote: > The last days I tried to figure out why some of my lab's FreeBSD boxes > and also mine at home seem to be outperformed by some Linux setups > around here and I saw something interesting. > > On my lab's FreeBSD 6.2/i386 box (ASUS P4P

Re: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0

2007-03-02 Thread Divacky Roman
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 10:43:34AM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >another while the box didn't do anything else than copying. I watched the > >copy process via 'systat -vmstat 1' and realized, that the value of 'KB/t' > >never go byond 128 (128kb buffer limit?). But more frustrating, I never go

Re: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0

2007-03-02 Thread Eric Anderson
:38 AM Subject: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0 The last days I tried to figure out why some of my lab's FreeBSD boxes and also mine at home seem to be outperformed by some Linux setups around here and I saw something interesting. blah blah blah deleted Before digging into this problem de

Re: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0

2007-03-02 Thread NOC Meganet
On Friday 02 March 2007 06:45, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > blah blah blah deleted > idem ;) > > Before digging into this problem deeper with benchmarks, could anyone > > explain why FreeBSD reaches this 33 MB/s limit (sounds like UDMA 33 > > man mount > > read section on "async" > > linux by defau

Re: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0

2007-03-02 Thread Wojciech Puchar
another while the box didn't do anything else than copying. I watched the copy process via 'systat -vmstat 1' and realized, that the value of 'KB/t' never go byond 128 (128kb buffer limit?). But more frustrating, I never got what's wrong? FreeBSD uses 128k limit by default. edit /usr/src/sys/s

Re: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0

2007-03-02 Thread Wojciech Puchar
you can change FBSD to async then watch your fs scramble during a power failure no big deal, it's only your data. you are wrong, he talked about copying BIG files, and this shouldn't make a difference contrary to small files. there is something wrong there as i routinely get 70MB/s on my SA

Re: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0

2007-03-02 Thread Alexander Leidinger
Quoting Cheffo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Fri, 02 Mar 2007 13:38:45 +0200): Hi, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: - Original Message - From: "O. Hartmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ; Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:38 AM Subject: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0 Th

Re: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0

2007-03-02 Thread Cheffo
Hi, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: - Original Message - From: "O. Hartmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ; Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:38 AM Subject: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0 The last days I tried to figure out why some of my lab's FreeBSD boxes and also mi

Re: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0

2007-03-02 Thread R. B. Riddick
--- "O. Hartmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Before digging into this problem deeper with benchmarks, could anyone > explain why FreeBSD reaches this 33 MB/s limit (sounds like UDMA 33 > defaults, but on both boxes nForce4 and ICH5 controller are recognized > and show up with SATA300 or SATA15

Re: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0

2007-03-02 Thread Ted Mittelstaedt
- Original Message - From: "O. Hartmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ; Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:38 AM Subject: (S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0 > The last days I tried to figure out why some of my lab's FreeBSD boxes > and also mine at home seem to be

(S)ATA performance in FBSD 6.2/7.0

2007-03-02 Thread O. Hartmann
The last days I tried to figure out why some of my lab's FreeBSD boxes and also mine at home seem to be outperformed by some Linux setups around here and I saw something interesting. On my lab's FreeBSD 6.2/i386 box (ASUS P4P800, ICH5 with two SATA 150 ports, two SATA 300 drives attached) I co