[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: IO scheduler benchmarking
David Lang <> wrote:
> one other useful test would be the time to copy a large (multi-gig) file.
> currently this takes forever and uses very little fo the disk bandwidth, I
> suspect that the AS would give more preference to reads and therefor would
> go faster.

Yes, that's a test.

time (cp 1-gig-file foo ; sync)

2.5.62-mm2,AS: 1:22.36
2.5.62-mm2,CFQ: 1:25.54
2.5.62-mm2,deadline: 1:11.03
2.4.21-pre4: 1:07.69

Well gee.

> for a real-world example, mozilla downloads files to a temp directory and
> then copies it to the premanent location. When I download a video from my
> tivo it takes ~20 min to download a 1G video, during which time the system
> is perfectly responsive, then after the download completes when mozilla
> copies it to the real destination (on a seperate disk so it is a copy, not
> just a move) the system becomes completely unresponsive to anything
> requireing disk IO for several min.

Well 2.4 is unreponsive period. That's due to problems in the VM - processes
which are trying to allocate memory get continually DoS'ed by `cp' in page

For the reads-starved-by-writes problem which you describe, you'll see that
quite a few of the tests did cover that. contest does as well.

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 13:33    [W:0.072 / U:6.700 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site