Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 15:35:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 15:35:05 -0500 Received: from zeus.kernel.org ([209.10.41.242]:62661 "EHLO zeus.kernel.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 15:34:52 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:29:47 -0600 (CST) From: Josh Grebe To: Jakob ?stergaard cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Question about memory usage in 2.4 vs 2.2 In-Reply-To: <20010320183238.B1508@unthought.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org As far as performance goes, I can only say that my max load is slightly lower on the 2.4 box then on the 2.2 boxes. Our average load for yesterday on 2.4 was .23, with a max of 1.11. In comparison, my averages for the other machines are .27, .27, .23, and .23. The maxes are 1.85, 1.33, 2.06, 1.47. As far as speed goes, I am not able to measure any real difference (only testing pop3) between 2.2 and 2.4. I would blame this on the NAS device, a NetApp Filer F760 being only able to push about 110mbit sustained on the gig-e network. Thanks, Josh --- Josh Grebe Senior Unix Systems Administrator Primary Network, an MPower Company http://www.primary.net On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, [iso-8859-1] Jakob ?stergaard wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:01:52AM -0600, Josh Grebe wrote: > > Greetings, > ... > > Doing the math, the 2.4 machine is using 44% of available memory, while > > the 2.2 is using only about 14%. > > How is the performance difference ? > > ... > > These machines are dual P2-400's, with 512M ECC ram, adaptec 2940, and > > dual intel etherexpress pro 100 cards. > > > > I also tried 2.4.2-ac20 with similar results. > > > > Am I missing something here? I'd really like to move the farm back up to > > 2.4 series. > > Free memory is wasted memory. It seemed like 2.4 wasted a lot less memory > than 2.2 on your workload. > > Could you do some performance measurements (eg. average latency on IMAP > connection or something like that) ? It would be great to know wheter > 2.4 is better or worse than 2.2 (it's most likely better, since it probably > uses the memory better, but it would be nice to know) > > -- > ................................................................ > : jakob@unthought.net : And I see the elder races, : > :.........................: putrid forms of man : > : Jakob ?stergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, : > : OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. : > :.........................:............{Konkhra}...............: > - 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/