From: Michael Frank <mhf@linuxmail.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Jon Burgess <lkml@jburgess.uklinux.net>
Cc: linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interleaved writes
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:02:39 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200402120502.39300.mhf@linuxmail.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0402111528140.23220-100000@chimarrao.boston.redhat.com>
On Thursday 12 February 2004 04:28, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Jon Burgess wrote:
>
> > Write speed in MB/s using an ext2 filesystem for 1 and 2 streams:
> > Num streams: 1 2
> > linux-2.4.22 10.47 6.98
> > linux-2.6.2 9.71 0.34
>
> > During the disk light is on solid and it really slows any other disk
> > access. It looks like the disk is continuously seeking backwards and
> > forwards, perhaps re-writing the meta data.
>
> Just for fun, could you also try measuring how long it takes
> to read back the files in question ?
>
> Both individually and in parallel...
>
2.4 has a deadline scheduler. 2.6 default is anticipatory.
Could you please boot with scheduler=deadline to compare apples with apples.
Regards
Michael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-11 20:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-11 19:04 ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interleaved writes Jon Burgess
2004-02-11 20:28 ` Rik van Riel
2004-02-11 21:02 ` Michael Frank [this message]
2004-02-11 21:18 ` Diego Calleja
2004-02-12 2:00 ` Dave Olien
2004-02-12 2:23 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-02-12 9:42 ` ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interl Giuliano Pochini
2004-02-12 10:15 ` John Bradford
2004-02-12 10:27 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-12 17:05 ` Michael Frank
2004-02-12 17:18 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2004-02-12 20:55 ` Helge Hafting
2004-02-13 1:57 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-02-13 2:05 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-12 14:59 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-02-13 12:15 ` ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interleaved writes Jon Burgess
2004-02-12 10:40 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-12 20:17 ` Hans Reiser
2004-02-12 9:56 ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-12 20:20 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-13 8:28 ` Juan Piernas Canovas
2004-02-16 17:51 ` Alex Zarochentsev
2004-02-16 20:03 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-13 12:35 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-14 15:00 ` Jon Burgess
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200402120502.39300.mhf@linuxmail.org \
--to=mhf@linuxmail.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkml@jburgess.uklinux.net \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.