Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!news.hawaii.edu!ames!night.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!svc.portal.com!news1.best.com!shell1.best.com!not-for-mail From: rcarter@best.com (Russell Carter) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: FreeBSD performance Date: 26 Apr 1995 16:57:06 -0700 Organization: Best Internet Communications, Inc. (info@best.com) Lines: 48 Message-ID: <3nmml3$6s9@shell1.best.com> References: <3nc5p0$vj2@rcogate.rco.qc.ca> <3nhcpp$3he@park.uvsc.edu> <25APR95.01988170.0111@VM1.MCGILL.CA> <3nkfg2$hj5@park.uvsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell1.best.com In article <3nkfg2$hj5@park.uvsc.edu>, Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu> wrote: >Matthew <BP7K000@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA> wrote: >] >] (A) Linux 1.1.49 Plato P90 32MB Seagate ST31200N ncr8150 ?? >] >] (B) Linux 1.1.49 ASUS PC/I-P54SP4 P90, 16MB HP C3323SE "" >] >] (C) FreeBSD 2.0 Plato P90 32MB Seagate ST32250N BT946C > >[ ... ] > >] Though not identical the hardware is close enough to raise an >] eyebrow when the results differ by a factor of 2. Whatever. As >] was pointed out the shared libs exact a performance penalty in >] exchange for ease and flexibility of development. That's good >] enough for me. In a mix of real world applications execl() in >] one system or another isnt going to have a perceptible effect >] so I consider the case closed. > >I have to disagree. There are known problems with PCI on Plato >boards and writeback caching. > >The Seagate differences could be substantial in skewing the >results. The use of the Bustek controller is extremely biased >against FreeBSD. > >The Use of 1.1.49 for Linux while using a 6 month older 2.0 for >the FreeBSD is highly skewed as well. Wait 6 months and compare >FreeBSD -current of that time with the Linux numbers of today... >heck, compare the -current code with Linux. > >Compare BSD with the disk striping code with Linux -- both machines >get to use NCR PCI SCSI controllers and 4 Quantum disks that >support command queueing. 8-). > > >] BUT I still dont know why with 8 MB i was getting 7 MB/sec >] throughput from the BT-946C/Barracuda and only 3.7 MB/sec >] with 32 MB !? > >It's probably not identifying the card correctly, or you have it >in a weird mode, and it's bouncing the buffers because it thinks >it can't DMA from the card with more than 16M in your box. > I get about 3.5 MB/s writing my st32550n, and > 6 reading. It's not the OS I think, it's the drive. Have you tried this drive with Linux? Setup: TP4-PB-100MHZ, ncr53c810, 32MB memory, 032195-current. Russell