[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Some 2.4.9 vs. 2.4.10 results

I don't have any real benchmark data, but all I want to add it that
2.4.11-pre2 is even faster than 2.4.10.

With 2.4.11-pre2, I can watch DVD (xmovie 1.8) on my IBM 240Z with frame
update a lot faster than 2.4.10.

[ ]

On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Peter Rival wrote:

> Hi all,
> I just thought I'd pop in my two cents on this whole topic. In short
> form, on my Alpha GS80 (8 CPUs, 8 GB, 40 U160 disks/4x2channel adapters,
> 2 NUMA nodes) 2.4.9 is almost unusable while 2.4.10 flies quite nicely.
> Under 2.4.9 even things as simple as a mke2fs on a single 18 GB drive
> took minutes, while under 2.4.10 only seconds. When I say 2.4.10, it's
> actually 2.4.10+the vm_tweak patch.
> I'm attaching a copy of the results of an AIM VII "shared" run as well as
> a lockstat report from a 500 user datapoint under 2.4.10. If there is
> desire, I can generate a lockstat report for 2.4.9 as well. I'm also
> going to see if I can get our profiling package to work on this system
> again, and if so I'll forward along those results as well.
> And not to bring up another old string, but just for giggles I removed
> the lock_kernel()/unlock_kernel() in llseek() to see what came of it.
> In short, a 2.2% gain in throughput and nearly 50% drop in the amount of
> time the kernel_lock is taken under this load. Definitely looking
> forward to 2.5. ;) Anyway, if there is something else anyone would be
> interested in that would be useful to run under this load (or a
> different set of statistics), feel free to let me know.
> - Pete

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:04    [W:0.076 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site