lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Performance regression in IO scheduler still there
Date
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> writes:

> Sadly, I don't see the improvement you can see :(. The numbers are the
> same regardless low_latency set to 0:
> 2.6.32-rc5 low_latency = 0:
> 37.39 36.43 36.51 -> 36.776667 0.434920
> But my testing environment is a plain SATA drive so that probably
> explains the difference...

I just retested (10 runs for each kernel) on a SATA disk with no NCQ
support and I could not see a difference. I'll try to dig up a disk
that support NCQ. Is that what you're using for testing?

Cheers,
Jeff

2.6.29 2.6.32-rc6,low_latency=0
----------------------------------
Average: 34.6648 34.4475
Pop.Std.Dev.: 0.55523 0.21981


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-11 18:47    [W:1.334 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site