Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:02:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:02:15 -0500 Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.123]:55485 "EHLO swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:02:09 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:06:34 -0500 To: Rik van Riel Cc: rwhron@earthlink.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Radix-tree pagecache for 2.5 Message-ID: <20020206220634.GB24571@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <20020206213420.GA24571@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i From: rwhron@earthlink.net Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > They run fastest when you run each of the dbench forks > sequentially and have the others stuck in get_request_wait. One interesting part of tiotest is the latency measurements. Latency isn't printed by tiobench.pl though. I think it's valueable information (and wish I had it). > This, of course, is completely unacceptable for real-world > server scenarios, where all users of the server need to be > serviced fairly. Agreed. I'm glad kernel hackers focus on latency too. :) There are _some_ applications where throughput is critical though. I would prefer to measure both throughput and latency at the same time, but am not yet clear on how to deal with the Heisenberg principle. -- Randy Hron - 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/