On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Pádraig Brady <p...@draigbrady.com> wrote: > On 05/24/2014 06:32 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> It looks like it makes sense to double IO_BUFSIZE once again. >> What do you think? > > +1 > > Significant enough to bump up I think, > and we never saw regressions with this size. > > Please amend the date etc. at the top of the comment too. > Here are the results from non x86 worth adding I think:
Good point. Done. > POWER7 3.55GHz, revision 2.1 IBM,8231-E2B > 1024=1.3 GB/s > 2048=2.5 GB/s > 4096=4.8 GB/s > 8192=9.2 GB/s > 16384=16.8 GB/s > 32768=28.0 GB/s > 65536=41.4 GB/s > 131072=54.8 GB/s > 262144=40.0 GB/s > 524288=34.5 GB/s > 1048576=36.5 GB/s Nice numbers. It'd be interesting to see power consumption :-) Can you determine RAM type and speed for that system? > I have access to some NDA architectures and > there was an increase in performance seen there also. I'd like to see a column or two for modern ARM-based server systems. Here's an updated patch. I'll update or remove the (RAM speed?) part before pushing.
0001-cat-cp-split-use-a-larger-buffer-for-copying.patch
Description: Binary data