From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 11:52:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 11:52:40 -0500 Received: from tomts8.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.52]:51859 "EHLO tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 11:52:26 -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 (dbench runs) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 11:52:07 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <244070000.978645169@tiny> <01010420411300.00624@oscar> In-Reply-To: <01010420411300.00624@oscar> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01010611520700.05871@oscar> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, I ran a few more benchmarks on 2.4.0 final with 3.6.24. The results were a little susprising (all on the same box, just after boot, no X): MB/s user system cpu time 3.6.24 7.1 54.0 177,6 25% 14:57.5 3.6.24 14.5 53.2 152.4 47% 7:15.7 3.6.24 5.6 55.6 191.0 22% 18:36.4 reiserfs can do well, but notice how the system cpu seconds varies... I am not seeing such wild differences in ext2 runs, impling that they are due to something in reiserfs? Ed Tomlinson On Thursday 04 January 2001 20:41, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > 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/