Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Jan 2001 17:15:05 -0500 (EST) | From | <> | Subject | Re: test13-pre6 |
| |
Stephen,
Have you or can you run these tests directly against a buffered block device (bypassing the filesystem) and see if it still behaves correctly? I have a Java app that does this and 2.4.0-prerelease shows a cumulative sync() time. As I write more data, sync times take longer and longer and never comes back down. It takes writing 30-50 megs cumulative (many syncs along the way) to become noticable. Noticable are latencies in the 20-30 ms range (up from 0-1 at the start of the test). Eventually the test comes to a grinding halt with all of it's time spent in the kernel.
I don't know when this happened in 2.4.0-testxx, but 2.2.x does not show this behavior.
stewart
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Hi, > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 04:25:43PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > Stephen: mind trying your fsync/etc tests on this one, to verify that the > > inode dirty stuff is all done right? > > Back from the Scottish Hogmanay celebrations now. :) I've run my > normal tests on this (based mainly on timing tests which show up > exactly how much is being written to disk for 1000 iterations of > various fsync/fdatasync/O_SYNC and overwrite/append combinations) and > 2.4.0-prerelease seems to be doing the Right Thing. > > My standard tests for this don't cover msync --- do you want me to > give that a try too? > > --Stephen > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |