From nobody@FreeBSD.org  Tue Jul 18 02:42:44 2006
Return-Path: <nobody@FreeBSD.org>
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D9816A4DA
	for <freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:42:44 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from nobody@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from www.freebsd.org (www.freebsd.org [216.136.204.117])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9AA243D4C
	for <freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:42:43 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from nobody@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from www.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by www.freebsd.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k6I2ghI7051098
	for <freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:42:43 GMT
	(envelope-from nobody@www.freebsd.org)
Received: (from nobody@localhost)
	by www.freebsd.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id k6I2ghLE051097;
	Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:42:43 GMT
	(envelope-from nobody)
Message-Id: <200607180242.k6I2ghLE051097@www.freebsd.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:42:43 GMT
From: Angus Wang <weiming96@hotmail.com>
To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Maybe the 6.0 Release is not much more than the 5.3 Release on file system.
X-Send-Pr-Version: www-2.3

>Number:         100460
>Category:       i386
>Synopsis:       Maybe the 6.0 Release is not much more than the 5.3 Release on file system.
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       high
>Responsible:    freebsd-i386
>State:          closed
>Quarter:        
>Keywords:       
>Date-Required:  
>Class:          maintainer-update
>Submitter-Id:   current-users
>Arrival-Date:   Tue Jul 18 02:50:13 GMT 2006
>Closed-Date:    Sat Jul 29 07:49:22 GMT 2006
>Last-Modified:  Sat Jul 29 07:49:22 GMT 2006
>Originator:     Angus Wang
>Release:        6.0 Realease & 5.3 Release
>Organization:
>Environment:
The Server with two Intel 2.0 CPU,512M*4 Memory.
>Description:
I used the iozone3_257, bonnie++-1.03a and iobench to test the 6.0 Realease
and 5.3 Release.  The test contents local, sync, async, soft updates and
sync+soft updates to load the filesystem, then I found the results is
amazed me.  When I used the iozone to test the performence of read, reread,
write and rewrite.  It shows the read curve is no difference between the
two system. but in the write curve the 6.0's sometimes is bad than 5.3's.
The other two soft tested shows the same resuls.

Maybe there is something wrong during my testing, please explains for me. 
Thanks!
>How-To-Repeat:
./iozone -A -n 4m -g 2G -R -b XXXX.xls
./tiobench.pl > XXXX.txt
./bonnie++ -u root -s 4G > XXX.txt
>Fix:

>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed 
State-Changed-By: linimon 
State-Changed-When: Sat Jul 29 07:44:32 UTC 2006 
State-Changed-Why:  
The 5.3 release does not have some of the improvements that were later 
made to 5.4 and 5.5.  The 6.0 release is missing some improvements made 
in the 6.1 release. 

Kris Kenneway's tests, as presented at BSDCan, tended to indicate that the 
latest codebase in 6-STABLE was outperforming not only 5-STABLE but also 
4-STABLE.  Again, that was with the latest code as available at the time. 

In general issues like this should be discussed on freebsd-questions or 
freebsd-hackers.  The PR database is best used to flag very specific bugs 
in very specific code.  The PRs that are submitted with performance problems 
generally tend to get lost in the large quantity of the former. 

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=100460 
>Unformatted:
