![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sep 19, 2002 00:16 -0400, Shawn Starr wrote: > These results compare EXT3 against EXT2 with rmap using the contest tool > you can get it at: http://contest.kolivas.net > > These tests are from a Athlon MP 2000+ w/ 512MB RAM > > noload: > > Kernel Time CPU > 2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 259.47 99% > 2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 267.66 97% > > process_load: > > Kernel Time CPU > 2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 318.91 80% > 2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 324.44 79% > > io_halfmem: > > Kernel Time CPU > 2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 306.82 87% > 2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 461.74 57% > > io full mem: > > Kernel Time CPU > 2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 325.39 82% > 2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 411.47 64% I don't see this as hugely surprising. ext3 uses more CPU than ext2. If you are using up the CPU doing other things, then naturally ext3 will take a longer wall-clock time to complete the same tasks as ext2. I know that Andrew has been doing a bunch of work to reduce ext3 CPU usage/locking/etc., but I think that is all in 2.5 kernels. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:29 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||