From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030237AbXDVLL2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Apr 2007 07:11:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030369AbXDVLL2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Apr 2007 07:11:28 -0400 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.238]:38789 "EHLO wx-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030293AbXDVLL0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Apr 2007 07:11:26 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:from:organization:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=VHPnw2BL37cKxTPOZnnmZePW+PcNRwPZRChlXj1xJe+24huhSGsMe80fWpkcO4pYXJwld2hryvo5b/u7/s1rkasW8Xg9yzNdEQCww43UKLRLK8qpteoCigsFL5a6O0IkKCMqnIJ/jDiw7qShWJigFaiR/5RBAQiYHQyq9Jxz1Vc= From: Gene Heskett Organization: Organization? very little To: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44 Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 07:11:21 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: Willy Tarreau , Ingo Molnar , Con Kolivas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Nick Piggin , Mike Galbraith , Arjan van de Ven , Peter Williams , Thomas Gleixner , caglar@pardus.org.tr References: <20070420140457.GA14017@elte.hu> <200704211417.03598.gene.heskett@gmail.com> <20070422080708.GI2986@holomorphy.com> In-Reply-To: <20070422080708.GI2986@holomorphy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200704220711.22432.gene.heskett@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 22 April 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 02:17:02PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: >> CFS-v4 is quite smooth in terms of the users experience but after >> prolonged observations approaching 24 hours, it appears to choke the cpu >> hog off a bit even when the system has nothing else to do. My amanda runs >> went from 1 to 1.5 hours depending on how much time it took gzip to handle >> the amount of data tar handed it, up to about 165m & change, or nearly 3 >> hours pretty consistently over 5 runs. > >Welcome to infinite history. I'm not surprised, apart from the time >scale of anomalies being much larger than I anticipated. [...] >Pardon my saying so but you appear to be describing anomalous behavior >in terms of "scheduler warmups." Well, that was what I saw, it took gzip about 4 or 5 minutes to get to the first 90% hit in htop's display, and it first hit the top of the display with only 5%. And the next backup run took about 2h:21m, so we're back in the ballpark. I'd reset amanda's schedule for a faster dumpcycle too, along with giving the old girl a new drive, all about the time we started playing with this, so the times I'm recording now may well be nominal. I suppose I should boot a plain 2.6.21-rc7 and make a run & time that, but I don't enjoy masochism THAT much. :) -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) I've enjoyed just about as much of this as I can stand.