[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: v2.6 vs v3.0
    On 29 Sep 2002, Alan Cox wrote:

    > On Sun, 2002-09-29 at 16:26, Matthias Andree wrote:
    > > I personally have the feeling that 2.2.x performed better than 2.4.x
    > > does, but I cannot go figure because I'm using ReiserFS 3.6 file
    > On low end boxes the benchmarks I did show later 2.4-rmap beats 2.2. 2.0
    > worked suprisingly well (better than pre-rmap 2.4) and as Stephen
    > claimed the best code was about 2.1.100, 2.2 then dropped badly from
    > that point.

    I might have said 2.1.106 (I'm still running that on one box), but that's
    the general sweet spot.

    > Low memory is of course where rmap does best, so the 2.4-rmap v 2.4
    > parts of such testing are not actually that useful

    In the 2.4-ac vs. 2.4-aa tests I did in the spring, rmap was better on
    small memory, -aa was better with large memory and heavy write load. I
    expect ioscheduling to address this, and when I get a totally expendable
    large machine I'll try 2.5 again.

    bill davidsen <>
    CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
    Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

    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 13:29    [W:0.019 / U:13.184 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site