On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> > >2) Apparently the 2.6 kernel's IO scheduler has a performance problem.
> >
> > Which one did you test?
> >
> The default in 2.6.7. It seems that one is
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Solutions to this inaccuracy are to make the test so long-running (ten
> minutes or more) that the difference is minor, or to include the `sync' in
> the time measurement.
And/or reduce RAM at kernel boot, etc. Anyway, I also asked for 'sync'
yesterday
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> reiser4 is using approximately twice the CPU percentage, but completes
> in approximately half the time, therefore it uses about the same
> amount of CPU time at the others.
>
> Therefore on a loaded system, with a load carefully chosen to make the
> test
How much memory you have? How big is mozilla-1.5a.tar? Did you include
'sync' in the tests? It seems reiser4 numbers are mostly in-memory
operations and not all data flushed to disk while this is apparently not
true for ext3. BTW, XFS numbers would be also/more interesting, ext[23] is
pretty outda
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Dieter [iso-8859-1] Nützel wrote:
> >
> >>More than 506 times...
> >>=> 506.34 seconds (8:26.34) / 0.01 seconds = 50.634 times ;-)))
> >
> > I
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Dieter [iso-8859-1] Nützel wrote:
> As reminder the old numbers (single U160, IBM 10k rpm):
For the below test, disk doesn't really matter. It's almost [should be (*)]
pure CPU job. Otherwise I'd have suggested a 'sync' at the end(**).
> 2.4.21-jam1 (aa1) plus all data-logg
