Hi...
I'll just make it short :) We should analyze it carefully case by case
so my conclusion could be different than yours.
Please share your finding later in whenever possible, I am sure it
will be a valuable piece for all of us.
regards,
Mulyadi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send a
Hi Mulyadi,
You are quite right. There are many things which can affect the tests. I
think the most import two factors are (1) how files are accessed, e.g.
sequentially or randomly, (2) which buffer cache and readahead algorithms
are used.
I've read Fengguang Wu's work some where. Basically reada
Hi...
> However for my testings, the performances are about the same regardless if
> the system has more memory (larger than the file size) or not. I can't quite
> understand this. Can anyone help me with this? I'm using kernel 2.6.18.
It will be a quite long answer if you need details. In essence
Hi,
I have been doing a testing to see how Linux buffer cache and readahead
algorithms perform for reading a file from a disk. My assumption is that:
(1) when the file size is less than the available physical memory, buffer
cache and readahead can give better performance even though extra sectors
