Re: [BENCHMARK] max bomb segment tuning with read latency 2 patch in contest

[Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


>Here are some io_load contest benchmarks with 2.4.20 with the read latency2
>patch applied and varying the max bomb segments from 1-6 (SMP used to save
>time!)
>
>io_load:
>Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.4.20 [5]              164.9   45      31      21      4.55
>2420rl2b1 [5]           93.5    81      18      22      2.58
>2420rl2b2 [5]           88.2    87      16      22      2.44
>2420rl2b4 [5]           87.8    84      17      22      2.42
>2420rl2b6 [5]           100.3   77      19      22      2.77
>
>io_other:
>Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.4.20 [5]              89.6    86      17      21      2.47
>2420rl2b1 [3]           48.1    156     9       21      1.33
>2420rl2b2 [3]           50.0    149     9       21      1.38
>2420rl2b4 [5]           51.9    141     10      21      1.43
>2420rl2b6 [5]           52.1    142     9       20      1.44
>
>There seems to be a limit to the benefit of decreasing max bomb segments. It
>does not seem to have a significant effect on io load on another hard disk
>(although read latency2 is overall much better than vanilla).
>
>Con

Further testing with changing values of read and write latencies (with fixed 
max_bomb to 4) and the read latency 2 patch in place shows no significant 
change to these figures over a wide range of numbers. This was not the case 
when I ran contest with different read latency values on the vanilla kernel 
(and found -r 512 to be a reasonable compromise according to Jens). Is there 
some other advantage to be gained by say increasing these numbers? (since 
contest results don't change with higher numbers either)

Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE98ffKF6dfvkL3i1gRAo01AJ0Zvs0x80vGF1hUillnIL4y+f6xRQCfZyni
YkNWPMORdfjRHfG5/6NxV4M=
=g1ht
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----