From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268026AbUHVQzM (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Aug 2004 12:55:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268029AbUHVQzM (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Aug 2004 12:55:12 -0400 Received: from [213.188.213.77] ([213.188.213.77]:18079 "EHLO server1.navynet.it") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268026AbUHVQzD (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Aug 2004 12:55:03 -0400 From: "Massimo Cetra" To: "'Nick Piggin'" Cc: Subject: RE: Production comparison between 2.4.27 and 2.6.8.1 Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:54:57 +0200 Message-ID: <000a01c48868$c1b334e0$0600640a@guendalin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 In-Reply-To: <4127F7FD.5060804@yahoo.com.au> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nick Piggin Wrote: > I wouldn't worry too much about hdparm measurements. If you > want to test the streaming throughput of the disk, run dd > if=big-file of=/dev/null or a large write+sync. > > Regarding your worse non-RAID XFS database results, try > booting 2.6 with elevator=deadline and test again. If yes, > are you using queueing (TCQ) on your disks? Done another test. This time I created a 256Mb ramdisk, formatted it as ext3 and mounted as data partition. Results are the following: 2.6.8.1: A) real 0m0.437s user 0m0.036s sys 0m0.013s B) real 0m37.307s user 0m3.212s sys 0m1.287s 2.4.7: A) real 0m0.437s user 0m0.024s sys 0m0.010s B) real 0m38.180s user 0m2.950s sys 0m1.602s In this case results are comparable. What is the difference, so? 2.6 performs better reading from disk. Avoiding PCI, SATA and disks on this test makes 2.4 and 2.6 perform in the same way. Hope this helps. Massimo Cetra