![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 10:26:06 +0800 Fengguang Wu wrote: > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 03:17:20AM +0200, Voluspa wrote: > > Patch: > > http://web.comhem.se/~u46139355/storetmp/adaptive-readahead-v14-linux-2.6.17-rc5-git-updated-june-04-2006.patch > > It seems that the patch has some problem: [...] > The above statements was displaced, rendering the if() clause to fail all the time. > That defeats the small file optimization, for ra_thrash_bytes will remain small. Which rendered all my testing invalid. Nice... It came about with the update-01to04of04 and must have elicited a "fuzz" that I neglected to check. Sorry to have caused you grief and extra work, Wu. I can only point towards the _Caveat and preemptive Mea Culpa_. > Voluspa, I attached an updated patch, including two more performance tunings. > Please take it when you find time to do more benchmarks, thanks. > > I'd suggest that you(and other kind people interested in testing it out) to run > blockdev --setra 2048 /dev/[sda/sda1/...] > before each benchmark to ensure fairness and simplicity of analysis, thanks. I'm in the process of writing up a new report after having tested for ca 6 hours straight (repenting mood). Will post in the original thread: Adaptive Readahead V14 - statistics question... http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=114893205000004&r=1&w=2 The subject has a 'higher profile' than this one and might pull in future testers. Note to Andrew; Revised Conclusion: On _this_ machine, with _these_ operations, Adaptive Readahead in its current incarnation and default settings is a slight _loss_. However, if the readahead size is lowered from 2048 to 256, it becomes a slight _gain_ or at least stays in parity with normal readahead. Mvh Mats Johannesson -- - 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: 2006-06-08 09:34 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||