[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.29
    Date (Lennart Sorensen) writes:

    > On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 03:00:44AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    >> I'll test this (and the other suggestions) once i'm out of the merge
    >> window.
    >> 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.
    > Well after a day of running my mythtv box with anticipatiry rather than
    > the default cfq scheduler, it certainly looks a lot better. I haven't
    > seen any slowdowns, the disk activity light isn't on solidly (it just
    > flashes every couple of seconds instead), and it doesn't even mind
    > me lanuching bittornado on multiple torrents at the same time as two
    > recordings are taking place and some commercial flagging is taking place.
    > With cfq this would usually make the system unusable (and a Q6600 with
    > 6GB ram should never be unresponsive in my opinion).
    > So so far I would rank anticipatory at about 1000x better than cfq for
    > my work load. It sure acts a lot more like it used to back in 2.6.18
    > times.

    Hi, Lennart,

    Could you try one more test, please? Switch back to CFQ and set
    /sys/block/sdX/queue/iosched/slice_idle to 0?

    I'm not sure how the applications you are running write to disk, but if
    they interleave I/O between processes, this could help. I'm not too
    confident that this will make a difference, though, since CFQ changed to
    time-slice based instead of quantum based before 2.6.18. Still, it
    would be another data point if you have the time.

    Thanks in advance!


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-04-04 00:33    [W:4.029 / U:0.500 seconds]
    ©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site