From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264987AbTF3PBp (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:01:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265038AbTF3PBp (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:01:45 -0400 Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.103]:17794 "EHLO e3.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264987AbTF3PBo (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:01:44 -0400 Subject: Re: Evaluation of three I/O schedulers From: Dave Hansen To: Peter Wong Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Mike Sullivan , Bill Hartner , Ray Venditti In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1056986151.25479.3.camel@nighthawk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 Date: 30 Jun 2003 08:15:51 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 07:21, Peter Wong wrote: > The 8-way machine has Pentium 4 2.0 GHz processors, 16 GB physical > memory, 2MB L3 cache, 8 FC controllers with 80 disks. Hyperthreading > was turned on for the three runs. The CPU utilization is similar for all > three runs: 65% user, 7% system and 28% idle. Could you give us an idea of how greatly utilized your 10 fiber controllers are? What about memory? Would a larger readahead be beneficial? -- Dave Hansen haveblue@us.ibm.com