Re: Possible performance regression?

["Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@hp.com>]

Gerhard Schneider wrote:

>Alan D. Brunelle wrote:
>  
>
>>(0,1)         1      2      4      8     16     32     64    128    256
>>RHEL4U2    23.8   46.8   87.8   89.6   89.5   89.6   89.5   89.5   89.5
>>2.6.14      3.9    7.8   15.6   31.2   62.5   89.6   89.5   89.5   89.6
>>Differ    -83.6% -83.3% -82.2% -65.2% -30.2%   0.0%   0.0%   0.0%   0.0%
>>
>>(0,1) means target 1 on bus 0, and then the columns represent different
>>transfer sizes (1K up to 256K).  I also see some that show little if any
>>difference:
>>
>>(6,4)         1      2      4      8     16     32     64    128    256
>>RHEL4U2    23.9   46.9   88.5   90.0   89.9   89.9   89.9   90.0   89.9
>>2.6.14.2   24.1   47.0   88.5   90.0   89.9   90.0   89.9   89.9   89.9
>>Differ      0.8%   0.2%   0.0%   0.0%   0.0%   0.1%   0.0%  -0.1%   0.0%
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Did you apply [PATCH] mptfusion : dv performance fix by
>Eric Dean Moore? (Dec. 1st, 2005) W/o that patch the first four disks of
>an 1030 are performing 3.5 MB/s instead of 70 :-)
>It was funny how slow a RAID 5-0 can be when four of fourteen disks
>are slow...
>
>                                          GS
>
>  
>
I do not know how to grab that specific patch, but I am just trying a 
2.6.15-rc6 kernel, and things seem much better. I'm hoping that 
2.6.15-rc6 contains the patch you mention?

Thanks,
Alan