Hello!
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 02:04:52AM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> > Yes, it is slow, but overal disk throughput of 7M/sec suggests this is
> > old drive. Old drives tend to have worse seeking speed than today's drives.
> But how much seeking is done on one 650 MB file that's been written
On Sunday, March 03, 2002 10:46:18 PM -0700 Andreas Dilger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mar 04, 2002 00:32 -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
>> Ok, I'm not going to be able to replicate the entire test, but I can
>> at least demonstrate the high number of subdirectories is slowing down
>> the crea
On Mar 04, 2002 00:32 -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> Ok, I'm not going to be able to replicate the entire test, but I can
> at least demonstrate the high number of subdirectories is slowing down
> the creation time. I'm guessing it is either caused by the
> subdirectory inodes not being in cache of
On Monday, March 04, 2002 12:16:35 AM -0500 Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ouch, sorry ray, for some reason I only saw the first reiserfs line.
> I suspect it has something to do with the number of sub directories,
> but that is a wild guess. I'll try to reproduce.
Ok, I'm not going
On Sunday, March 03, 2002 09:30:06 PM -0700 Andreas Dilger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mar 03, 2002 18:04 -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
>> > 500-9.6K file size distribution (postmark default)
>>
>> With this file size, the reiserfs tail code will be a bottleneck.
>> I'd suggest mounting wi
On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 11:55:57PM -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> On March 3, 2002 03:03 pm, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > I have uploaded an updated version of the radix-tree pagecache patch
> > against 2.4.19-pre2-ac2. News in this release:
> >
> > * fix a deadlock when vmtruncate takes i_shared_l
On March 3, 2002 03:03 pm, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I have uploaded an updated version of the radix-tree pagecache patch
> against 2.4.19-pre2-ac2. News in this release:
>
> * fix a deadlock when vmtruncate takes i_shared_lock twice by introducing
> a new mapping->page_lock that mutexes mappi
On Mar 03, 2002 18:04 -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > 500-9.6K file size distribution (postmark default)
>
> With this file size, the reiserfs tail code will be a bottleneck.
> I'd suggest mounting with -o notail, it makes a huge difference in
> my postmark tests.
He already posted numbers with
On Monday, March 04, 2002 02:04:52 AM +0100 Matthias Andree
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oleg Drokin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Yes, it is slow, but overal disk throughput of 7M/sec suggests this is
>> old drive. Old drives tend to have worse seeking speed than today's drives.
>
> But
Anders Widman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Even with 'heavy' fragmentation this is quite low. A quick benchmark
> of my 5400rpm 80GB disk gave me an average on 30MB/s. However, when
> simulating large fragmentation (10 000+ fragments on a 1GB file) I get
> about 2MB/s.
>
> Is DMA, unmask IRQ, re
Oleg Drokin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, it is slow, but overal disk throughput of 7M/sec suggests this is
> old drive. Old drives tend to have worse seeking speed than today's drives.
But how much seeking is done on one 650 MB file that's been written onto
an empty partition? I presume, n
Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would not say that speeds this bad are a known problem. 1.9MB/s is
> much too slow. Is that FS very full? Fragmentation is the only thing
> that should be causing this.
We can exclude that, the partition is empty except that single file, or
maybe tw
On Sunday, 3 March 2002 at 15:00:38 +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Bradley Kite wrote:
>
>> Hi there.
>>
>> I currently have too much time on my hands and am looking
>> into the possibilities (and feasibility) of implementing ReiserFS
>> on FreeBSD.
>>
>> Does any body know if someone is currently d
On Friday, March 01, 2002 11:55:18 PM -0600 Ray Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been working on a draft of a file systems performance paper
> comparing ext2, ext3, resiferfs, and xfs performance when running under
> a couple of different benchmarks, one of which is postmark. I'm seein
> from floppy. Not so nice for a standalone server.
> I had to type in "root=/dev/ataraid/d0p1" with 2.4.6-ac2 and "root=7201" with
> newer kernels at the lilo boot prompt. Why the change?
Linus never took the patch to put /dev/ataraid/ in the device name list
for init.c
Alan
Hello to all of you!
I have to reinstall a Linux server for a school which is a reference system
for more to come. Main usage is SAMBA (DOMAIN logon and DOMAIN master),
squid, and Apache.
It was running since June 2001 under SuSE 7.2, ReiserFS 3.6 and kernel
2.4.6-ac (the first HP370 ataraid
On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 03:00:38PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> No one is doing it. Be aware that ReiserFS is GPL'd, and that you need
> to maintain the GPL when doing the port.
>
> It is a very large job you are taking on. Are you sure you want to
> commit that much time without a commercial
Anders Widman wrote:
>>On Saturday, March 02, 2002 06:55:24 PM +0300 Oleg Drokin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>
>>>Hello!
>>>
>>>On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 07:16:08PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
>>>
I have some observation here that I cannot explain to myself.
It seems as though ReiserFS
Ray Bryant wrote:
>The list sofwtare apparently stripped this off because it was a binary
>file (I had to gzip it to get it below the 40KB message size limit for
>this list). Anyway, if you are interested in a copy of the benchmark,
>please email me and I will send it along to you.
>
Please send
We'll try to reproduce your results. We haven't run postmark recently I
think. Elena can you try to reproduce?
Can you describe your hardware? Do you have tails on or off?
Hans
Ray Bryant wrote:
>I've been working on a draft of a file systems performance paper
>comparing ext2, ext3, resife
Bradley Kite wrote:
>Hi there.
>
>I currently have too much time on my hands and am looking
>into the possibilities (and feasibility) of implementing ReiserFS
>on FreeBSD.
>
>Does any body know if someone is currently doing this? I dont want to
>duplicate the effort involved, and would much rathe
> On Saturday, March 02, 2002 06:55:24 PM +0300 Oleg Drokin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 07:16:08PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
>>> I have some observation here that I cannot explain to myself.
>>> It seems as though ReiserFS impaired my throughput on 650
On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 06:55:24PM +0300, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> This is a known problem. I and Chris are working on it exactly right now.
> This is a problem related to the fact that metadata is located on the other
> side of disk then the actual data.
Might it be better to read (and
23 matches
Mail list logo
