[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: linux-2.4.10-pre5

    --On Monday, 10 September, 2001 11:18 PM +0200 Daniel Phillips
    <> wrote:

    > We lost 78.5 seconds somewhere. From the sound of the disk drives, I'd
    > say we lost it to seeking, which physical readahead with a large cache
    > would be able to largely eliminate in this case.

    So you only get a large % of your 78.5 seconds back
    from pure physical readahead if the files and metadata
    are (a) ordered in monitonically increasing disk
    locations w.r.t. access order, and (b) physically close (no time
    wasted reading in irrelevant data), or you apply some
    form of clairvoyance patch :-) An alternative benchmark
    would be do dd the /entire/ disk into RAM, then
    run your diff on that, and I bet you get the
    opposite result.

    More serious point: if we retain readahead at a
    logical level, you get it for non-physical
    files too (e.g. NFS) - I presume this is
    the intention. If so, what advantage does
    additional physical readahead give you,
    given physical ordering is surely no better
    (and probably worse than) logical ordering.

    Alex Bligh
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.026 / U:1.920 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site