Matthew Dillon wrote:
 >     I ran blockbench on a HAMMER partition and on a UFS partition and
 >     got some rather interesting results.
 >
 >     I fully expected HAMMER's write performance to be bad compared to 
UFS,
 >     because HAMMER is still double-buffering its data.  Indeed, as the
 >     test began UFS seemed to be outdoing HAMMER.  But as the number 
of files
 >     grew and the kernel started to have to recycle vnodes and 
buffers, UFS's
 >     performance went completely to hell while HAMMER was able to 
maintain good
 >     throughput.  Ths basic blog benchmark creates, reads, and writes 
around
 >     20,000 files and goes for a lot of parallelism.
 >
 >     I don't know why UFS's write performance went to hell.. it pretty 
much
 >     died completely after a very promising start.  But even ignoring that
 >     as some sort of implementation fluke the read performance numbers 
speak
 >     for themselves.
 >
 >     I haven't run bonnie++ yet.  I think UFS still does very well vs 
HAMMER
 >     on saturated single-file I/O.

Would be nice to see some UFS benchmarks of FreeBSD, to make sure it's
not an issue with DragonFly's UFS "implementation". Too sad that I don't
have UFS anymore (only ZFS), so I could do it myself. And then, the
benchmark should be done on one and the same machine. But probably it's
wise to wait a few days for benchmarks :)

Regards,

   Michael