It would be interesting to see similar tests in which the
filesystems were mounted such that the inode access time
is not updated.
D
* On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 01:22:58AM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> On Mar 22, 1:47pm, Kevin Buettner wrote:
>
> > If anyone's interested, I could also run these tests on the same box
> > using NetBSD 1.5, Solaris 8, and Unixware 7. It might be
> > interesting to see how the commercial OSes do...
>
> Well, as it turned out, I was interested in seeing whether other
> implementations of Unix use memory to cache file data. I was also
> interested in seeing how well these other OSes make use of this
> cache. Below are my findings...
>
> ...........................................................................
>
> The table below shows the time (in seconds) taken to run the following
> command back-to-back (i.e. twice in a row) on various OSes:
>
> time find linux-2.4.2 -type f -print | xargs wc > /dev/null
>
> This test measures how well the OS uses extra memory to cache file
> data. The test data are the sources to the stock Linux 2.4.2 kernel
> available from ftp.kernel.org. The test data takes up roughly 108MB
> of disk space.
>
> Hardware is 1.1GHz Athlon w/ 768 MB memory. There are two disks in
> the machine. Both are 7200 RPM EIDE drives made by Western Digital.
> One drive is 30GB; the other is 40GB. The 40GB drive was used for the
> Solaris 8 and NetBSD 1.5 tests; the 30GB drive was used for the other
> tests.
>
> | Real #1 | User #1 | Sys #1 | Real #2 | User #2 | Sys #2 |
> ----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> RH Wolverine | 19.85 | 1.43 | 0.87 | 1.65 | 1.21 | 0.44 |
> ----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> FreeBSD 4.2 (1) | 21.46 | 1.59 | 1.30 | 7.24 | 1.52 | 0.74 |
> ----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> FreeBSD 4.2 (2) | 31.00 | 1.43 | 1.25 | 4.93 | 1.45 | 0.75 |
> ----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> NetBSD 1.4 | 22.87 | 1.19 | 1.06 | 22.38 | 1.19 | 1.07 |
> ----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> NetBSD 1.5 | 26.38 | 1.21 | 1.07 | 24.61 | 1.17 | 0.96 |
> ----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> Unixware 7 | 40.86 | 1.58 | 17.26 | 2.40 | 1.28 | 1.02 |
> ----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> Solaris 8 | 55.51 | 1.92 | 2.09 | 2.94 | 1.82 | 1.04 |
> ----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
>
> Notes:
> (1) Using ext2fs for the filesystem
> (2) Using ufs for the filesystem
>
> uname -a data
> -------------
> Wolverine:
> Linux mesquite 2.4.1-0.1.9 #1 Wed Feb 14 22:15:15 EST 2001 i686 unknown
>
> FreeBSD 4.2:
> FreeBSD mesquite.lan 4.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.2-RELEASE #2: Sun Mar 11 11:18:15 MST 2001 root@mesquite.lan:/usr/src/sys/compile/MESQUITE i386
>
> NetBSD 1.4:
> NetBSD mesquite 1.4 NetBSD 1.4 (GENERIC) #0: Fri May 7 12:27:31 PDT 1999 perry@cynic.cynic.net:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC i386
>
> NetBSD 1.5:
> NetBSD mesquite.lan 1.5 NetBSD 1.5 (GENERIC) #1: Sun Nov 19 21:42:11 MET 2000 fvdl@sushi:/work/trees/netbsd-1-5/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC i386
>
> Unixware 7:
> UnixWare mesquite 5 7.1.1 i386 x86at SCO UNIX_SVR5
>
> Solaris 8:
> SunOS mesquite 5.8 Generic_108529-03 i86pc i386 i86pc
>
> Additional notes and observations
> ---------------------------------
>
> With the exception of FreeBSD 4.2, I'm using the stock kernel from the
> install of each OS. I have not done any system tuning. (The FreeBSD
> kernel was recompiled in order to get ext2fs support.)
>
> The "Real #1" numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. The
> machine in question is a multi-boot machine and I had to copy over the
> test data to the partition where the OS resides. It is well known
> that different portions (usually inner tracks vs. outer tracks) of a
> disk perform differently. (My understanding is that the outer tracks
> give better performance and that the difference in performance between
> the inner and outer tracks can be quite dramatic. See
> www.storagereview.com for more info.)
>
> The important number for this test is the "Real #2" value. The above
> tests shows that Linux, FreeBSD, Unixware 7, and Solaris 8 all use
> memory to cache filesystem data. Neither of the NetBSD releases that
> I tested appear to use memory as a cache since the wall clock
> performance for the second test was virtually identical to the first.
> Also, FreeBSD doesn't do as good a job as one might expect, though it
> does do slightly better when using it's own native filesystem (UFS).
> It's interesting to note that, in the first test, FreeBSD completed
> roughly 9.5 seconds faster when using an ext2 filesystem as opposed to
> a UFS filesystem. (But again, see the caveat in the previous
> paragraph; this number could be entirely due to the location where
> the data resides on disk.)
>
> I repeated some of the more surprising tests (in particular, the Linux
> and FreeBSD tests) more than once and obtained virtually identical
> results in the subsequent trials. I should also note that each trial
> (consisting of the two back to back tests) was run immediately after a
> fresh boot of the OS under consideration. The reason for doing this
> was to make sure that as much of the machine's memory as possible was
> free to use for caching file data.
>
> Comments?
>
> Kevin
>
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
> Plug-discuss mailing list - Plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
(text/plain)