mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Martin A. Fink" <fink@mpe.mpg.de>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SATA-performance: Linux vs. FreeBSD
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:27:17 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200702121727.17108.fink@mpe.mpg.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <p73abzji9xi.fsf@bingen.suse.de>

Am Montag, 12. Februar 2007 18:04 schrieb Andi Kleen:
> "Martin A. Fink" <fink@mpe.mpg.de> writes:
> > 
> > What I did:
> > I wrote blocks of 1 MB size to file. Each 1 GB I made a fsync and took the 
> > time. For those tests with filesystems I wrote files of 1 GB size, 
otherwise 
> > I just wrote to the raw device.
> 
> Newer Linux versions depending on the disk and the file system will tell
> the disk to flush the buffers to disk on fsync. FreeBSD might or might not
> do that, but if it doesn't it would explain the difference.

If you call fsync in BSD then you get what you expect. anything that is still 
not on disk will be written. Afterwards fsync returns... So this should be 
the same like with linux?!
> 
> > 
> > Results: -1-
> > 
> > Test					OpenSuSE(AHCI)			FreeBSD(AHCI)
> > 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > SSD(vfat 25GB)			41+/-2 MB/s at 4-10%		15+/-0 MB/s at 2% CPU
> 
> vfat is certainly not a performance optimized file system.
That is just a minor test.
> 
> > SSD(raw  25GB) 		26+/-1 MB/s at 4-10% CPU	48+/-0 MB/s at 1% CPU

The above line is what makes me wondering !!!

> > SSD(ext3 25GB)		39+/-5 MB/s at 10-15% CPU	34+/-0 MB/s at 14% CPU
> > SSD(ext2 25GB)		42+/-1 MB/s at 10-15% CPU	32+/-0 MB/s at 10% CPU
> 
> 
> You could use oprofile (http://oprofile.sourceforge.net) to find out
> where the CPU is being used.
> 
> 
> > 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Test					OpenSuSE (AHCI off)		FreeBSD (AHCI off)
> > 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > SSD(vfat 25GB)			22+/-4 MB/s at 6-19% CPU	--
> > SSD(raw  25GB)		33+/-4 MB/s at 7-14% CPU	41+/-0 MB/s at 1% CPU
> 
> I remember vaguely (but I might be wrong here) the standard block
> character devices on FreeBSD are buffered, while raw is truly
> unbuffered on Linux. Naive programs (no optimized IO threads or aio) 
> on truly unbuffered devices tend to perform poorly because they
> don't do any write behind.

But the big question still is -- buffered or not -- where do the big 
variations within linux come frome? I am not writing small blocks. I write 
huge amounts of data. So the buffer will always be full. And: Linux is even 
slower then BSD if it can use a buffer. The maximum performance of Linux is 
42 MB/s (buffered) while the maximum performance of BSD is 48 MB/s (buffered 
or not -- i don't know).
If I use a normal SATA-II disk, there are no differences between BSD and Linux 
when writing to the raw device... So it cant be a buffer-problem alone.
> 
> It might also useful if you post the libata related parts of your
> boot log.

> > 
> > Question 2:
> > Can anybody explain to me, why writing to a solid state disk (a kind of 
> > memory  
> > that always has the same constant bandwidth) has such big standard errors 
> > in  
> > writing rate using Linux (between 1 to 6 MB/s error) while FreeBSD gives 
> > an  
> > almost constant writing rate (as one would expect it for a SSD) ?
> 
> Could be buffered vs unbuffered. Unbuffered single threaded writes
> tend to be quite variable.
This does not answer the big variation when writing with ext3 of +/- 5 MB/s.

I still don't understand the buffer argument. If one writes 25 GB in blocks of 
1 MB your buffer should be always full...
> 
> > Question 3:
> > Why is writing to a raw device in Linux slower than using e.g. ext2 ? And 
why 
> > is Linux writing rate much lower (-12.5 % for the best case) compared to 
> > writing rate of FreeBSD?
> 
> It's really hard to make raw io perform well without complicated
> efforts because nobody will hide the IO latencies. That is why
> buffered IO is normally recommend

Is there a buffered io device that I can use, but that does not use a 
filesystem?

> 
> -Andi
> 

-- 
Dipl. Physiker
Martin Anton Fink
Max Planck Institute for extraterrestrial Physics
Giessenbachstrasse
85741 Garching
Germany
Tel. +49-(0)89-30000-3645
Fax. +49-(0)89-30000-3569

  reply	other threads:[~2007-02-12 16:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-02-12 14:02 Martin A. Fink
2007-02-12 17:04 ` Andi Kleen
2007-02-12 16:27   ` Martin A. Fink [this message]
2007-02-12 18:41     ` Andi Kleen
2007-02-12 17:56       ` Martin A. Fink
2007-02-12 18:17         ` Ray Lee
2007-02-12 19:08         ` Alan
2007-02-12 20:34           ` Nigel Cunningham
2007-02-13  9:34           ` Martin A. Fink
2007-02-13 11:25             ` Alan
2007-02-13 12:32               ` Martin A. Fink
2007-02-13 14:47                 ` Theodore Tso
2007-02-13 15:03                   ` Alan
2007-02-13 17:12               ` Jeff Garzik
2007-02-12 23:31         ` Matthias Schniedermeyer
2007-02-13  9:25           ` Martin A. Fink
2007-02-13 10:08             ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-02-13 11:18               ` Andi Kleen
2007-02-13 10:25                 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-02-13 11:27               ` Alan
2007-02-13 11:59                 ` Jörn Engel
2007-02-13 19:54               ` Jeffrey Hundstad
2007-02-13 10:16             ` Matthias Schniedermeyer
2007-02-13 10:29               ` Martin A. Fink
2007-02-13 12:04                 ` Jörn Engel
2007-02-13 12:24                 ` Matthias Schniedermeyer
2007-02-13 12:49                   ` Martin A. Fink
2007-02-13 13:53                     ` Matthias Schniedermeyer
2007-02-12 16:37   ` Martin A. Fink
2007-02-12 18:19     ` Stefan Richter
2007-02-13 19:09     ` Jeff Carr
2007-02-12 17:42   ` Martin A. Fink
2007-02-15  5:48 ` Tejun Heo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200702121727.17108.fink@mpe.mpg.de \
    --to=fink@mpe.mpg.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome