[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21

Peter Chubb wrote:

>>>>>>"Andrew" == Andrew Morton <> writes:
>Andrew> Martin Konold <> wrote:
>>>when using 2.6.0.test1 on a high end laptop (P-IV 2.2 GHz, 1GB RAM)
>>>I notice very significant slowdown in interactive usage compared to
>>>The difference is most easily seen when switching folders in
>>>kmail. While 2.4.21 is instantaneous 2.6.0.test1 shows the clock
>>>for about 2-3 seconds.
>I see the same problem, and I'm using XFS. Booting with
>elevator=deadline fixed it for me. The anticipatory scheduler hurts
>if you have a disc optimised for low power consumption, not speed.

I don't think this generalisation is really fair. All hard disks
have the same basic properties which AS exploits. There seems to
be something going wrong though.

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 13:47    [W:0.054 / U:1.588 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site