From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:41:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:41:36 -0500 Received: from tomts7.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.40]:61161 "EHLO tomts7-srv.bellnexxia.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:41:33 -0500 From: Ed Tomlinson Organization: me To: Chris Mason , reiserfs-list@namesys.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [reiserfs-list] reiserfs patch for 2.4.0-prerelease Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:41:13 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <244070000.978645169@tiny> In-Reply-To: <244070000.978645169@tiny> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01010420411300.00624@oscar> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, I have been doing some dbench runs with the original and latest (Jan 4 22:xx) prerelease.diff kernels. Looks like both the latest kernels and the reiserfs patch both are costing some performance. prerelease MB/s user system cpu time ext2 14.6 50.5s 76.4s 29% 7:14.9m ext2 12.6 50.9s 76.7s 25% 8:23.6m reiser 14.5 53.8s 149.2s 46% 7:16.1m reiser 10.7 54.1s 154.5s 35% 9:49.9m prerelease (2.4.0 jan 4 22:xx) MB/s user system cpu time ext2 10.5 52.8s 81.5s 22% 10:02.3m reiser 5.8 54.6s 198.5s 23% 18:12.5m reiser 6.4 55.1s 188.7s 24% 16.19.3m Using the notail reiserfs mount option improves the reiserfs numbers 10-20% with both kernels. All benchmarks run on a K6-III 400 with 128M just after boot with no X running. Comments? Ed Tomlinson - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/