From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Robinson Subject: Re: raid6's using not the best bandwidth method && raid6 algo is significantly slower in x86_64. Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:12:57 +0000 Message-ID: <4928AE19.7030601@anonymous.org.uk> References: <200811172235.mAHMZAQt032187@terminus.zytor.com> <43d009740811180403v6308dbc0y8ba093524700bb72@mail.gmail.com> <4922E381.20501@zytor.com> <43d009740811211122m36809523mff9521ca8af95a1e@mail.gmail.com> <49270CA5.2090508@zytor.com> <43d009740811211133p7321bc39q1a1eccd9c53d6ca0@mail.gmail.com> <492716CE.8040900@zytor.com> <43d009740811212140l3ac2298ch512aca0e3631d269@mail.gmail.com> <49279BC5.8080106@zytor.com> <43d009740811212145x13d2e353l7d9fee3d912c89c0@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <43d009740811212145x13d2e353l7d9fee3d912c89c0@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linux RAID List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 22/11/2008 05:45, Igor Podlesny wrote: > 2008/11/22 H. Peter Anvin : > [...] >>> Please let us know when commiting the patch -- 20 % is valuable. >>> ;-) >>> >> Looks like I was a bit too optimistic. The 20% was because of the missed >> prefetchnta, which means polluting the cache. > > Well, whatever it gives unless it's a regression. :-) Not sure I agree with that - if the 20% improvement were to have a heavy impact on the rest of system performance when the system is already going to be underperforming, it may not worth having (though it might be an option for people who can afford the CPU or whatever). Cheers, John.