1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
|
.\" Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
.\" All rights reserved.
.\"
.\" Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
.\" modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
.\" are met:
.\" 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
.\" notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
.\" 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
.\" notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
.\" documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
.\" 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
.\" must display the following acknowledgement:
.\" This product includes software developed by the University of
.\" California, Berkeley and its contributors.
.\" 4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
.\" may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
.\" without specific prior written permission.
.\"
.\" THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
.\" ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
.\" IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
.\" ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
.\" FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
.\" DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
.\" OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
.\" HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
.\" LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
.\" OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
.\" SUCH DAMAGE.
.\"
.\" @(#)results.ms 6.2 (Berkeley) 4/16/91
.\"
.ds RH Results
.NH
Results
.PP
The following tables indicate the results of our
test runs.
Note that each table contains results for tests run
on two varieties of 4.2BSD file systems.
The first set of results is always for a file system
with a basic blocking factor of eight Kilobytes and a
fragment size of 1 Kilobyte. The second sets of measurements
are for file systems with a four Kilobyte block size and a
one Kilobyte fragment size.
The values in parenthesis indicate the percentage of CPU
time used by the test program.
In the case of the two disk arm tests,
the value in parenthesis indicates the sum of the percentage
of the test programs that were run.
Entries of ``n. m.'' indicate this value was not measured.
.DS
.TS
box,center;
c s s s s
c s s s s
c s s s s
l | l s | l s
l | l s | l s
l | l l | l l
l | c c | c c.
4.2BSD File Systems Tests - \fBVAX 11/750\fR
=
Logically Sequential Transfers
from an \fB8K/1K\fR 4.2BSD File System (Kbytes/sec.)
_
Test Emulex SC750/Eagle UDA50/RA81
1 Drive 2 Drives 1 Drive 2 Drives
_
read_8192 490 (69%) 620 (96%) 310 (44%) 520 (65%)
write_4096 380 (99%) 370 (99%) 370 (97%) 360 (98%)
write_8192 470 (99%) 470 (99%) 320 (71%) 410 (83%)
rewrite_8192 650 (99%) 620 (99%) 310 (50%) 450 (70%)
=
.T&
c s s s s
c s s s s
l | l s | l s
l | l s | l s
l | l l | l l
l | c c | c c.
Logically Sequential Transfers
from \fB4K/1K\fR 4.2BSD File System (Kbytes/sec.)
_
Test Emulex SC750/Eagle UDA50/RA81
1 Drive 2 Drives 1 Drive 2 Drives
_
read_8192 300 (60%) 400 (84%) 210 (42%) 340 (77%)
write_4096 320 (98%) 320 (98%) 220 (67%) 290 (99%)
write_8192 340 (98%) 340 (99%) 220 (65%) 310 (98%)
rewrite_8192 450 (99%) 450 (98%) 230 (47%) 340 (78%)
.TE
.DE
.PP
Note that the rate of write operations on the VAX 11/750 are ultimately
CPU limited in some cases.
The write rates saturate the CPU at a lower bandwidth than the reads
because they must do disk allocation in addition to moving the data
from the user program to the disk.
The UDA50/RA81 saturates the CPU at a lower transfer rate for a given
operation than the SC750/Eagle because
it causes more memory contention with the CPU.
We do not know if this contention is caused by
the UNIBUS controller or the UDA50.
.PP
The following table reports the results of test runs on a VAX 11/780
with 4 Megabytes of main memory.
.DS
.TS
box,center;
c s s s s s s
c s s s s s s
c s s s s s s
l | l s | l s | l s
l | l s | l s | l s
l | l l | l l | l l
l | c c | c c | c c.
4.2BSD File Systems Tests - \fBVAX 11/780\fR
=
Logically Sequential Transfers
from an \fB8K/1K\fR 4.2BSD File System (Kbytes/sec.)
_
Test Emulex SC780/Eagle UDA50/RA81 Sys. Ind. 9900/Eagle
1 Drive 2 Drives 1 Drive 2 Drives 1 Drive 2 Drives
_
read_8192 560 (70%) 480 (58%) 360 (45%) 540 (72%) 340 (41%) 520 (66%)
write_4096 440 (98%) 440 (98%) 380 (99%) 480 (96%) 490 (96%) 440 (84%)
write_8192 490 (98%) 490 (98%) 220 (58%)* 480 (92%) 490 (80%) 430 (72%)
rewrite_8192 760 (100%) 560 (72%) 220 (50%)* 180 (52%)* 490 (60%) 520 (62%)
=
.T&
c s s s s s s
c s s s s s s
l | l s | l s | l s
l | l s | l s | l s
l | l l | l l | l l
l | c c | c c | c c.
Logically Sequential Transfers
from an \fB4K/1K\fR 4.2BSD File System (Kbytes/sec.)
_
Test Emulex SC780/Eagle UDA50/RA81 Sys. Ind. 9900/Eagle
1 Drive 2 Drives 1 Drive 2 Drives 1 Drive 2 Drives
_
read_8192 490 (77%) 370 (66%) n.m. n.m. 200 (31%) 370 (56%)
write_4096 380 (98%) 370 (98%) n.m. n.m. 200 (46%) 370 (88%)
write_8192 380 (99%) 370 (97%) n.m. n.m. 200 (45%) 320 (76%)
rewrite_8192 490 (87%) 350 (66%) n.m. n.m. 200 (31%) 300 (46%)
.TE
* the operation of the hardware was suspect during these tests.
.DE
.PP
The dropoff in reading and writing rates for the two drive SC780/Eagle
tests are probably due to the file system using insufficient
rotational delay for these tests.
We have not fully investigated these times.
.PP
The following table compares data rates on VAX 11/750s directly
with those of VAX 11/780s using the UDA50/RA81 storage system.
.DS
.TS
box,center;
c s s s s
c s s s s
c s s s s
l | l s | l s
l | l s | l s
l | l l | l l
l | c c | c c.
4.2BSD File Systems Tests - \fBDEC UDA50 - 750 vs. 780\fR
=
Logically Sequential Transfers
from an \fB8K/1K\fR 4.2BSD File System (Kbytes/sec.)
_
Test VAX 11/750 UNIBUS VAX 11/780 UNIBUS
1 Drive 2 Drives 1 Drive 2 Drives
_
read_8192 310 (44%) 520 (84%) 360 (45%) 540 (72%)
write_4096 370 (97%) 360 (100%) 380 (99%) 480 (96%)
write_8192 320 (71%) 410 (96%) 220 (58%)* 480 (92%)
rewrite_8192 310 (50%) 450 (80%) 220 (50%)* 180 (52%)*
=
.T&
c s s s s
c s s s s
l | l s | l s
l | l s | l s
l | l l | l l
l | c c | c c.
Logically Sequential Transfers
from an \fB4K/1K\fR 4.2BSD File System (Kbytes/sec.)
_
Test VAX 11/750 UNIBUS VAX 11/780 UNIBUS
1 Drive 2 Drives 1 Drive 2 Drives
_
read_8192 210 (42%) 342 (77%) n.m. n.m.
write_4096 215 (67%) 294 (99%) n.m. n.m.
write_8192 215 (65%) 305 (98%) n.m. n.m.
rewrite_8192 227 (47%) 336 (78%) n.m. n.m.
.TE
* the operation of the hardware was suspect during these tests.
.DE
.PP
The higher throughput available on VAX 11/780s is due to a number
of factors.
The larger main memory size allows a larger file system cache.
The block allocation routines run faster, raising the upper limit
on the data rates in writing new files.
.PP
The next table makes the same comparison using an Emulex controller
on both systems.
.DS
.TS
box, center;
c s s s s
c s s s s
c s s s s
l | l s | l s
l | l s | l s
l | l l | l l
l | c c | c c.
4.2BSD File Systems Tests - \fBEmulex - 750 vs. 780\fR
=
Logically Sequential Transfers
from an \fB8K/1K\fR 4.2BSD File System (Kbytes/sec.)
_
Test VAX 11/750 CMI Bus VAX 11/780 SBI Bus
1 Drive 2 Drives 1 Drive 2 Drives
_
read_8192 490 (69%) 620 (96%) 560 (70%) 480 (58%)
write_4096 380 (99%) 370 (99%) 440 (98%) 440 (98%)
write_8192 470 (99%) 470 (99%) 490 (98%) 490 (98%)
rewrite_8192 650 (99%) 620 (99%) 760 (100%) 560 (72%)
=
.T&
c s s s s
c s s s s
l | l s | l s
l | l s | l s
l | l l | l l
l | c c | c c.
Logically Sequential Transfers
from an \fB4K/1K\fR 4.2BSD File System (Kbytes/sec.)
_
Test VAX 11/750 CMI Bus VAX 11/780 SBI Bus
1 Drive 2 Drives 1 Drive 2 Drives
_
read_8192 300 (60%) 400 (84%) 490 (77%) 370 (66%)
write_4096 320 (98%) 320 (98%) 380 (98%) 370 (98%)
write_8192 340 (98%) 340 (99%) 380 (99%) 370 (97%)
rewrite_8192 450 (99%) 450 (98%) 490 (87%) 350 (66%)
.TE
.DE
.PP
The following table illustrates the evolution of our testing
process as both hardware and software problems effecting
the performance of the Emulex SC780 were corrected.
The software change was suggested to us by George Goble
of Purdue University.
.PP
The 4.2BSD handler for RH750/RH780 interfaced disk drives
contains several constants which to determine how
much time is provided between an interrupt signaling the completion
of a positioning command and the subsequent start of a data transfer
operation. These lead times are expressed as sectors of rotational delay.
If they are too small, an extra complete rotation will often be required
between a seek and subsequent read or write operation.
The higher bit rate and rotational speed of the 2351A Fujitsu
disk drives required
increasing these constants.
.PP
The hardware change involved allowing for slightly longer
delays in arbitrating for cycles on the SBI bus by
starting the bus arbitration cycle a little further ahead of
when the data was ready for transfer.
Finally we had to increase the rotational delay between consecutive
blocks in the file because
the higher bandwidth from the disk generated more memory contention,
which slowed down the processor.
.DS
.TS
box,center,expand;
c s s s s s s
c s s s s s s
c s s s s s s
l | l s | l s | l s
l | l s | l s | l s
l | l s | l s | l s
l | c c | c c | c c
l | c c | c c | c c.
4.2BSD File Systems Tests - \fBEmulex SC780 Disk Controller Evolution\fR
=
Logically Sequential Transfers
from an \fB8K/1K\fR 4.2BSD File System (Kbytes/sec.)
_
Test Inadequate Search Lead OK Search Lead OK Search Lead
Initial SBI Arbitration Init SBI Arb. Improved SBI Arb.
1 Drive 2 Drives 1 Drive 2 Drives 1 Drive 2 Drives
_
read_8192 320 370 440 (60%) n.m. 560 (70%) 480 (58%)
write_4096 250 270 300 (63%) n.m. 440 (98%) 440 (98%)
write_8192 250 280 340 (60%) n.m. 490 (98%) 490 (98%)
rewrite_8192 250 290 380 (48%) n.m. 760 (100%) 560 (72%)
=
.T&
c s s s s s s
c s s s s s s
l | l s | l s | l s
l | l s | l s | l s
l | l s | l s | l s
l | c c | c c | c c
l | c c | c c | c c.
Logically Sequential Transfers
from an \fB4K/1K\fR 4.2BSD File System (Kbytes/sec.)
_
Test Inadequate Search Lead OK Search Lead OK Search Lead
Initial SBI Arbitration Init SBI Arb. Improved SBI Arb.
1 Drive 2 Drives 1 Drive 2 Drives 1 Drive 2 Drives
_
read_8192 200 220 280 n.m. 490 (77%) 370 (66%)
write_4096 180 190 300 n.m. 380 (98%) 370 (98%)
write_8192 180 200 320 n.m. 380 (99%) 370 (97%)
rewrite_8192 190 200 340 n.m. 490 (87%) 350 (66%)
.TE
.DE
.ds RH Conclusions
.bp
|
