lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jul]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [git patches] IDE update
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 14:35 +0200, Ondrej Zary wrote:
>
>>>>>>2.4.26
>>>>>>root@pentium:/home/rainbow# time dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/null bs=512
>>>>>>count=1048576
>>>>>>1048576+0 records in
>>>>>>1048576+0 records out
>>>>>>
>>>>>>real 0m23.858s
>>>>>>user 0m1.750s
>>>>>>sys 0m15.180s
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps some read-ahead bug. What happens if you use bs=128k for
>>>>>instance?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nothing - it's still the same.
>>>>
>>>>root@pentium:/home/rainbow# time dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/null bs=128k
>>>>count=4096
>>>>4096+0 records in
>>>>4096+0 records out
>>>>
>>>>real 0m32.832s
>>>>user 0m0.040s
>>>>sys 0m15.670s
>>>
>>>
>>>Can you post full dmesg of 2.4 and 2.6 kernel boot? What does hdparm
>>>-I/-i say for both kernels?
>>>
>>
>>The 2.4.26 kernel is the one from Slackware 10.0 bootable install CD.
>>dmesg outputs attached, hdparm -i and hdparm -I shows the same in both
>>kernels (compared using diff) - attached too.
>
>
> Ok, looks alright for both. Your machine is quite slow, perhaps that is
> showing the slower performance. Can you try and make HZ 100 in 2.6 and
> test again? 2.6.13-recent has it as a config option, otherwise edit
> include/asm/param.h appropriately.
>

I forgot to write that my 2.6.12 kernel is already compiled with HZ 100
(it makes the system more responsive).
I've just tried 2.6.8.1 with HZ 1000 and there is no difference in HDD
performance comparing to 2.6.12.

--
Ondrej Zary
-
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: 2005-07-05 15:15    [W:0.053 / U:0.504 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site