Messages in this thread | | | From | "Frederick, Fabian" <> | Subject | RE: Disk performance degradation | Date | Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:43:40 +0200 |
| |
Comparative vmstat -d 1 could help as well
-----Message d'origine----- De : Andrew Morton [mailto:akpm@osdl.org] Envoyé : mercredi 30 juillet 2003 12:55 À : Stefano Rivoir Cc : lista1@telia.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Objet : Re: Disk performance degradation
Stefano Rivoir <s.rivoir@gts.it> wrote: > > Voluspa wrote: > > > On 2003-07-29 12:00:06 Stefano Rivoir wrote: > > > > > >>Is there something I'm missing?! > > > > > > No, you are not ;-) You can reclaim some speed by doing a "hdparm -a > > 512". See thread for explanation (it's the borked value for readahead): > > Thanks for the hint. This seems to make things a little better, but I'm > still far away from 2.4 performances. I thought that anticipatory sched > could be part of the problem, and booting with elevator=deadline > does a little better... but using 2.4 is completely another thing. > By the way, -a 512 vs -a 8 is a kernel "change" or an hdpam one?
What makes you think it is a disk performance problem at all? All we know is that KDE applications take longer to start up, yes?
How much memory is in that machine? Can you run a `vmstat 1' trace during the "slow" operations?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html 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 More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |