From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:09:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id l0AM9iqw010560 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:09:46 -0800 Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:08:43 +1100 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: XFS and 2.6.18 -> 2.6.20-rc3 Message-ID: <20070110220843.GA44411608@melbourne.sgi.com> References: <45A27BC7.2020709@exegy.com> <20070109012212.GG44411608@melbourne.sgi.com> <20070109072535.GH44411608@melbourne.sgi.com> <45A4EA2B.5050505@exegy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45A4EA2B.5050505@exegy.com> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: "Mr. Berkley Shands" Cc: David Chinner , Eric Sandeen , Dave Lloyd , linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 07:29:15AM -0600, Mr. Berkley Shands wrote: > With a fresh install of the O/S on a non-broken motherboard, the change to > > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio > > restores most of the lost performance from 2.6.18, > as of 2.6.20-rc4. The difference is 10% to 15% without the dirty_ratio > change (40 is the default, 10 gives the old performance). .... > So whatever needs to be tweaked in the VM system seems to be the key. > > Thanks to all for getting this regression repaired. Well, it's not repaired as such - you've got a WAR for the problem. I'll report the problem to lkml so that the VM gurus can try to really fix the problem.... Thanks for confirming that the dirty_ratio tweak also worked for you. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group