![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Nick Piggin wrote: > Christian Schmid wrote: > >> I already tried with 300 KB and even used a perl-hash as a >> horrible-slow buffer for a readahead-replacement. It still slowed down >> on the syswrite to the socket. Thats the strange thing. >> > > Do you have to use manual readahead though? What is the performance > like if you just let the kernel do its own thing? The kernel's > readahead provides things like automatic scaling and thrashing > control, so if possible you should just stick to that. Acutally, thats why I changed it to manual readahead. I thought the slowdown comes from some weird read-ahead settings. But with the manual read-ahead, this problem appears as well. Its still a phenomenon why this slowdown definetly disappears when I raise /proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes to 1024000 (until it hits around 4500 sockets) but it seems not to work with smaller or bigger values.... > Also, can we get a testcase (ie. minimal compilable code) to reproduce > this problem? This is a complex code, thats why I really want to avoid this..... Feel free to ask for traces or anything you want to know though. Thanks, Chris - 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 14:10 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||