Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: 2.1.114 VFS code 5x slower than 2.0.33?!? | From | Zlatko Calusic <> | Date | 09 Aug 1998 00:27:13 +0200 |
| |
alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) writes:
> ---------Case 1--------- > > > > Notice how 2.1.114 spends much more time in the kernel (6 times more > > > than 2.0.33). Overall it is 3 times slower. > > Thats the dcache I suspect. Its probably a win for most uses however. > You can use the kernel profiling to find out. Also remember to compare > non SMP kernels with non SMP kernels
Hm. How can dcache be slower and better at the same time? :)
I don't know, but deletion is much much slower in 2.1 and you don't even need benchmark to see that.
Both kernels are UP, no doubt about that.
> > > > If I'm right, this implies that 2.1.114 is very bad for proxy and/or > > > news servers, who both operate on lots of files, creating/deleting > > > them at fast rate. > > Proxies spend most of their time looking up files. I wouldnt expect that > to be this worst case you report
Well, you're right, but looking at "ls -al" benchmark, I'm not that convinced that 2.1 is better. OK, my "benchmarks" are too stupid to prove anything, but...
> > > > Anybody care to shed some light on this? > > Can you see if 2.1.115ac1 is any better on this benchmark on your box >
I'll check, as soon as I sit physically at my machine (tomorrow).
I'll try to make some better test suite, too.
Regards, -- Posted by Zlatko Calusic E-mail: <Zlatko.Calusic@CARNet.hr> --------------------------------------------------------------------- FOR SALE: Iraqi rifle. Never fired. Dropped once.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |