On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 12:33:21PM -0400, safemode wrote:
> Both disks are Matrox UDMA66 7200rpm hdd's but one is 10.2GB and the other is
I guess You meant Maxtor. Matrox is a Graphics Card manufacturer.
--
Live long and prosper
- Harald Welte / [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.sunbeam.franken.
I cant test this patch by doing tests that go into swap. You add a
variable that wasn't used in the 100MB tests and going into swap would
no doubt cause major performance drops from this 100MB test no matter
what VM you used. The added overhead is very dependent on too many
variables to compare r
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 05:47:01PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Things like random memory corruption from dropping dirty bits,
> > and some of the others are far more serious showstoppers alas
>
> Indeed, there are 4 major issues left in the VM area
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
> Someone tell Rik to get his hands on a copy of AIMS-7 and start
> benchmarking his VM so when the SCO Unix numbers hit the street, we've
> got a rebuttal and fix dates to tell folks.
>
That's going to be tough - AIM as a company is out of business (just go to
www.aim.
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Yes, it kicks butt and it finally (just about) removes the final
> > Linux kernel showstopper for recent kernels. ;-)
>
> Things like random memory corruption from dropping dirty bits,
> and some of the others are far more serious showstoppers alas
Indeed
Mark Hahn wrote:
> > I can't do such a test because my swap is on the same drive as the one i
> > took those tests. But, I ran it at 384MB (128MB of ram) on my other drive
> > and this is what it gave me.
>
> same make/model of disk?
>
> > ---Sequential Output ---Sequen
Mark Hahn wrote:
> > have trouble with the readings bonnie gives me.
>
> um, that's because you used too-small a file. try it with -s
> at least 3x the size of ram.
>
> so far, reports are fairly consistent that Rik's patch cause a minor hit
> in sustained disk IO, and some real benefit on l
> Yes, it kicks butt and it finally (just about) removes the final
> Linux kernel showstopper for recent kernels. ;-)
Things like random memory corruption from dropping dirty bits, and some of
the others are far more serious showstoppers alas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsub
> have trouble with the readings bonnie gives me.
um, that's because you used too-small a file. try it with -s
at least 3x the size of ram.
so far, reports are fairly consistent that Rik's patch cause a minor hit
in sustained disk IO, and some real benefit on low-memory machines.
-
To unsub
Just like to thank Rik for this one. The patch is unbelievable and I
have trouble with the readings bonnie gives me.
(before kernel patch (2.4.0-test8-pre1 with Low latency patch)
---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input--
--Random--
-Per Char- --Block--
Someone tell Rik to get his hands on a copy of AIMS-7 and start
benchmarking his VM so when the SCO Unix numbers hit the street, we've
got a rebuttal and fix dates to tell folks.
:-)
Jeff
Bill Huey wrote:
>
> John,
>
> > Hi, this is just a short no-statistics testimony that Rik's VM patch
>
On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Bill Huey wrote:
>
> John,
>
> > Hi, this is just a short no-statistics testimony that Rik's VM patch
> > to test8-pre1 seems much improved over test7. I have a UP P200 with 40Mb,
> > and previously running KDE2 + mozilla was totally unusable.
>
> > With the patch, things
John,
> Hi, this is just a short no-statistics testimony that Rik's VM patch
> to test8-pre1 seems much improved over test7. I have a UP P200 with 40Mb,
> and previously running KDE2 + mozilla was totally unusable.
> With the patch, things run much more smoothly. Interactive feel seems
> bette
Hi, this is just a short no-statistics testimony that Rik's VM patch
to test8-pre1 seems much improved over test7. I have a UP P200 with 40Mb,
and previously running KDE2 + mozilla was totally unusable.
With the patch, things run much more smoothly. Interactive feel seems
better, and I don't ha
14 matches
Mail list logo
