Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:12:11 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [BENCHMARK] I/O regression after 2.6.0-test5 |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote:
>Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote: > >> >> >>rwhron@earthlink.net wrote: >> >> >>>There was about a 50% regression in jobs/minute in AIM7 >>>database workload on quad P3 Xeon. The CPU time has not >>>gone up, so the extra run time is coming from something >>>else. (I/O or I/O scheduler?) >>> >>>tiobench sequential reads has a significant regression too. >>> >>>Regression appears unrelated to filesystem type. >>> >>>dbench was not affected. >>> >>>The AIM7 was run on ext2. >>> >>> >>Yeah I'd say its all due to the IO scheduler. There is a problem >>I'm thinking about how to fix - its the likely cause of this too. >> >> > >What change do you think it was due to? > >
I was thinking: [PATCH] fix AS crappy performance
(It still doesn't work properly)
>It's rather strange that test6 is slow but test6-mm is not: generally the >IO scheduler regressions enter -mm first ;) >
But if test6-mm isn't slow then maybe it is due to something else
- 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/
| |