I thought it might be interesting see how 7-CURRENT did with respect to
cached file reading that we tested a while ago. Briefly recall that I'm
using a dual PIII 1.26Ghz with 2G dual channel PC133, reading a 781MB
(completely) cached file.
Redoing the same test, with the previous 6.2-PRE results
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
I used the attached program to read a cached
781MB file sequentially and randomly with a specified block size (see
below).
In the interest of making it easy for anyone to re-test this later, I'll
in-line the program source here (I did post a link to my web space, but
t
David Xu wrote:
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
.
(snippage) I used the attached program to read a cached
781MB file sequentially and randomly with a specified block size (see
below). The conclusion I came to was that our (i.e FreeBSD) cached
read performance (particularly for smaller block sizes) cou
2006/12/23, David Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Saturday 23 December 2006 03:29, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> I want to point out http://www.freebsd.org/projects/ideas/#p-memcpy
> here. Just in case someone wants to play around a little bit.
>
> Bye,
> Alexander.
I have read the code, if a buffer
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006, I wrote:
The problem becomes smaller as the read block size appoaches the file
system block size and vanishes when the sizes are identical. Then
there is apparently a different (smaller) problem:
Read size 16K, random:
%%%
granularity: each sample hit covers 16 byte(s) for
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Bruce Evans wrote:
None was attached.
(meaning the c prog yes?) I notice that it is stripped out from the web
archive... so here's a link:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/markir/download/freebsd/readtest.c
However, I
couldn't see much differe
On Saturday 23 December 2006 03:29, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> I want to point out http://www.freebsd.org/projects/ideas/#p-memcpy
> here. Just in case someone wants to play around a little bit.
>
> Bye,
> Alexander.
I have read the code, if a buffer is not aligned at 16 bytes boundary,
it will
Bruce Evans wrote:
None was attached.
(meaning the c prog yes?) I notice that it is stripped out from the web
archive... so here's a link:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/markir/download/freebsd/readtest.c
Machines
- ufs2 32k blocksize, 4K fragments
^^
T
Quoting Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:37:53 +1100 (EST)):
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
> > On 22/12/06, David Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I suspect in such a test, memory copying speed will be a key factor,
> >> I don't have number to back up my
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 22/12/06, David Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I suspect in such a test, memory copying speed will be a key factor,
I don't have number to back up my idea, but I think Linux has lots
of tweaks, such as using MMX instruction to copy data.
I had the o
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
I recently did some testing on the performance of cached reads using two
(almost identical) systems, one running FreeBSD 6.2PRE and the other running
Gentoo Linux - the latter acting as a control. I initially started a thread
of the same name on -stabl
Has anyone tried these tests with 4.x? Well, i did, and i was surprised
how good the performance is, it gave me the highest number of all tests,
even compared to much faster HW. Although this is all different
hardware, it seems like the performance drops the higher the version of
FreeBSD is, speci
On 12/21/06 19:35, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
I recently did some testing on the performance of cached reads using two
(almost identical) systems, one running FreeBSD 6.2PRE and the other
running Gentoo Linux - the latter acting as a control. I initially
started a thread of the same name on -stable,
On 22/12/06, David Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I suspect in such a test, memory copying speed will be a key factor,
I don't have number to back up my idea, but I think Linux has lots
of tweaks, such as using MMX instruction to copy data.
I had the oppertunity to study the AMD Athlon XP Optim
David Xu wrote:
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
I recently did some testing on the performance of cached reads using
two (almost identical) systems, one running FreeBSD 6.2PRE and the
other running Gentoo Linux - the latter acting as a control. I
initially started a thread of the same name on -stable, bu
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
I recently did some testing on the performance of cached reads using two
(almost identical) systems, one running FreeBSD 6.2PRE and the other
running Gentoo Linux - the latter acting as a control. I initially
started a thread of the same name on -stable, but it was suggeste
I recently did some testing on the performance of cached reads using two
(almost identical) systems, one running FreeBSD 6.2PRE and the other
running Gentoo Linux - the latter acting as a control. I initially
started a thread of the same name on -stable, but it was suggested I
submit a mail her
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Anyway on to the results: I used the attached program to read a cached
Silly bug in attached program : lseek failure test has 1 instead of -1
(finger trouble).
*** readtest.c.orig Fri Dec 22 14:43:42 2006
--- readtest.c Fri Dec 22 14:43:24 2006
***
*** 103,109
18 matches
Mail list logo
