* something is dramatically wrong with buffered read performance in 2.6.32.9
@ 2010-03-17 22:33 Stan Hoeppner
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Stan Hoeppner @ 2010-03-17 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ide
I recently upgraded from kernel 2.6.31.1 to 2.6.32.9. Upon kicking the
tires on the new kernel I discovered that my two data partitions are
suffering a ~30MB/s performance loss compared to my root partition. That's
a loss of nearly half the performance of my disk.
The root partition is a primary, formatted with EXT2. The two data
partitions are logicals within an extended partition, both formatted with
XFS. hdparm O_DIRECT tests show identical throughput for all 3 partitions.
Going through the buffer cache, however, shows a huge performance drop for
the two logical partitions. Throughput is nearly cut in half through the
buffer cache:
/dev/sda2:
Timing O_DIRECT disk reads: 238 MB in 3.02 seconds = 78.79 MB/sec
/dev/sda2:
Timing buffered disk reads: 208 MB in 3.00 seconds = 69.26 MB/sec
/dev/sda6:
Timing O_DIRECT disk reads: 236 MB in 3.02 seconds = 78.14 MB/sec
/dev/sda6:
Timing buffered disk reads: 126 MB in 3.01 seconds = 41.79 MB/sec
/dev/sda7:
Timing O_DIRECT disk reads: 238 MB in 3.00 seconds = 79.27 MB/sec
/dev/sda7:
Timing buffered disk reads: 126 MB in 3.03 seconds = 41.65 MB/sec
Any ideas what I'm running into here? Did I somehow fubar something in
menuconfig?
I get the same results with dd copy tests through the buffer cache to
/dev/null. Any idea what's wrong? Is this a known bug?
--
Stan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2010-03-17 22:33 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-03-17 22:33 something is dramatically wrong with buffered read performance in 2.6.32.9 Stan Hoeppner
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.