Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759920AbZDBBBS (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 21:01:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751158AbZDBBBE (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 21:01:04 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:49166 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750886AbZDBBBD (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 21:01:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 03:00:44 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andrew Morton Cc: Lennart Sorensen , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, tytso@mit.edu, drees76@gmail.com, jesper@krogh.cc, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.29 Message-ID: <20090402010044.GA16092@elte.hu> References: <20090325220530.GR32307@mit.edu> <20090326171148.9bf8f1ec.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090326174704.cd36bf7b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090326182519.d576d703.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090401210337.GB3797@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <20090401143622.b1885643.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090401143622.b1885643.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1699 Lines: 43 * Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:03:38 -0400 > lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 06:25:19PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > The JBD journal is a massive designed-in contention point. It's why > > > for several years I've been telling anyone who will listen that we need > > > a new fs. Hopefully our response to all these problems will soon be > > > "did you try btrfs?". > > > > Oh I look forward to the day when it will be safe to convert my mythtv > > box from ext3 to btrfs. Current kernels just have too much IO latency > > with ext3 it seems. Older kernels were more responsive, but probably > > had other places they were less efficient. > > Back in 2002ish I did a *lot* of work on IO latency, > reads-vs-writes, etc, etc (but not fsync - for practical purposes > it's unfixable on ext3-ordered) > > Performance was pretty good. From some of the descriptions I'm > seeing get tossed around lately, I suspect that it has regressed. > > It would be useful/interesting if people were to rerun some of these > tests with `echo anticipatory > /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler'. I'll test this (and the other suggestions) once i'm out of the merge window. > Or with linux-2.5.60 :( I probably wont test that though ;-) Going back to v2.6.14 to do pre-mutex-merge performance tests was already quite a challenge on modern hardware. Ingo -- 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/