Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 06:32:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 06:32:18 -0400 Received: from sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com ([171.71.163.54]:43659 "EHLO sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 06:32:17 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020806203012.025db940@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 20:31:08 +1000 To: Jens Axboe From: Lincoln Dale Subject: Re: Linux v2.4.19-rc5 Cc: Bill Davidsen , Steven Cole , Marcelo Tosatti , lkml , Andrew Morton , Steven Cole In-Reply-To: <20020806054258.GJ3975@suse.de> References: <1028232945.3147.99.camel@spc9.esa.lanl.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 984 Lines: 25 At 07:42 AM 6/08/2002 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > Call me an optimist, but after all the reliability problems we had win the > > 2.5 series, I sort of hoped it would be better in performance, not > > increasingly worse. Am I misreading this? Can we fall back to the faster > > 2.4 code :-( > >try a work load that excercises the block i/o layer alone (O_DIRECT, >raw, whatnot) and then compare 2.4 and 2.5. ibm had some slides on this >from ols, unfortunately I don't know if they have then online. the BIO in 2.5 kicks butt over the 2.4 BIO - both in terms of increased throughput and decreased cpu utilization. see some testing i previously did: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102635456620627&w=2 cheers, lincoln. - 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/