Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 2 Apr 2009 03:00:44 +0200 | | From | Ingo Molnar <> | | Subject | Re: 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
|  |