From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ondrej Zary Subject: Re: [git patches] IDE update Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 15:02:19 +0200 Message-ID: <42CA84DB.2050506@rainbow-software.org> References: <200507042033.XAA19724@raad.intranet> <42C9C56D.7040701@tomt.net> <42CA5A84.1060005@rainbow-software.org> <20050705101414.GB18504@suse.de> <42CA5EAD.7070005@rainbow-software.org> <20050705104208.GA20620@suse.de> <42CA7EA9.1010409@rainbow-software.org> <1120567900.12942.8.camel@linux> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailhub3.nextra.sk ([195.168.1.146]:4875 "EHLO mailhub3.nextra.sk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261842AbVGENCW (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jul 2005 09:02:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1120567900.12942.8.camel@linux> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Tomt?= , Al Boldi , 'Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz' , 'Linus Torvalds' , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jens Axboe wrote: > On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 14:35 +0200, Ondrej Zary wrote: > >>>>>>2.4.26 >>>>>>root@pentium:/home/rainbow# time dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/null bs=512 >>>>>>count=1048576 >>>>>>1048576+0 records in >>>>>>1048576+0 records out >>>>>> >>>>>>real 0m23.858s >>>>>>user 0m1.750s >>>>>>sys 0m15.180s >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Perhaps some read-ahead bug. What happens if you use bs=128k for >>>>>instance? >>>>> >>>> >>>>Nothing - it's still the same. >>>> >>>>root@pentium:/home/rainbow# time dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/null bs=128k >>>>count=4096 >>>>4096+0 records in >>>>4096+0 records out >>>> >>>>real 0m32.832s >>>>user 0m0.040s >>>>sys 0m15.670s >>> >>> >>>Can you post full dmesg of 2.4 and 2.6 kernel boot? What does hdparm >>>-I/-i say for both kernels? >>> >> >>The 2.4.26 kernel is the one from Slackware 10.0 bootable install CD. >>dmesg outputs attached, hdparm -i and hdparm -I shows the same in both >>kernels (compared using diff) - attached too. > > > Ok, looks alright for both. Your machine is quite slow, perhaps that is > showing the slower performance. Can you try and make HZ 100 in 2.6 and > test again? 2.6.13-recent has it as a config option, otherwise edit > include/asm/param.h appropriately. > I forgot to write that my 2.6.12 kernel is already compiled with HZ 100 (it makes the system more responsive). I've just tried 2.6.8.1 with HZ 1000 and there is no difference in HDD performance comparing to 2.6.12. -- Ondrej Zary