Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 13:18:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 13:18:14 -0500 Received: from dsl-213-023-043-085.arcor-ip.net ([213.23.43.85]:23715 "EHLO starship.berlin") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 13:18:05 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: rwhron@earthlink.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.18pre4aa1 Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 07:27:43 +0100 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] In-Reply-To: <20020124002342.A630@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <20020124002342.A630@earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On January 24, 2002 06:23 am, rwhron@earthlink.net wrote: > Benchmarks on 2.4.18pre4aa1 and lots of other kernels at: > http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/k6-2-475.html "dbench 64, 128, 192 on ext2fs. dbench may not be the best I/O benchmark, but it does create a high load, and may put some pressure on the cpu and i/o schedulers. Each dbench process creates about 21 megabytes worth of files, so disk usage is 1.3 GB, 2.6 GB and 4.0 GB for the dbench runs. Big enough so the tests cannot run from the buffer/page caches on this box." Thanks kindly for the testing, but please don't use dbench any more for benchmarks. If you are testing stability, fine, but dbench throughput numbers are not good for much more than wild goose chases. Even when mostly uncached, dbench still produces flaky results. -- Daniel - 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/