lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.29

    * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

    > On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:03:38 -0400
    > lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
    >
    > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 06:25:19PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > > The JBD journal is a massive designed-in contention point. It's why
    > > > for several years I've been telling anyone who will listen that we need
    > > > a new fs. Hopefully our response to all these problems will soon be
    > > > "did you try btrfs?".
    > >
    > > Oh I look forward to the day when it will be safe to convert my mythtv
    > > box from ext3 to btrfs. Current kernels just have too much IO latency
    > > with ext3 it seems. Older kernels were more responsive, but probably
    > > had other places they were less efficient.
    >
    > Back in 2002ish I did a *lot* of work on IO latency,
    > reads-vs-writes, etc, etc (but not fsync - for practical purposes
    > it's unfixable on ext3-ordered)
    >
    > Performance was pretty good. From some of the descriptions I'm
    > seeing get tossed around lately, I suspect that it has regressed.
    >
    > It would be useful/interesting if people were to rerun some of these
    > tests with `echo anticipatory > /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler'.

    I'll test this (and the other suggestions) once i'm out of the merge
    window.

    > Or with linux-2.5.60 :(

    I probably wont test that though ;-)

    Going back to v2.6.14 to do pre-mutex-merge performance tests was
    already quite a challenge on modern hardware.

    Ingo


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-04-02 03:03    [W:0.021 / U:156.532 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site