From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264174AbUESNh2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2004 09:37:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264175AbUESNh2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2004 09:37:28 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:47597 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264174AbUESNh1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2004 09:37:27 -0400 Subject: Re: 1352 NUL bytes at the end of a page? From: Chris Mason To: Steven Cole Cc: Nick Piggin , hugh@veritas.com, elenstev@mesatop.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org, support@bitmover.com, Wayne Scott , adi@bitmover.com, akpm@osdl.org, wli@holomorphy.com, Andrea Arcangeli , lm@bitmover.com In-Reply-To: <70C69E3C-A998-11D8-A7EA-000A95CC3A8A@lanl.gov> References: <200405190453.31844.elenstev@mesatop.com> <1084968622.27142.5.camel@watt.suse.com> <20040519.072009.92566322.wscott@bitmover.com> <40AB5639.7060806@yahoo.com.au> <70C69E3C-A998-11D8-A7EA-000A95CC3A8A@lanl.gov> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1084973802.27142.14.camel@watt.suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:36:42 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 09:28, Steven Cole wrote: > > Steven, with all else being equal, you said you found a 2.6.3 SuSE > > kernel to significantly outperform 2.6.6, is that right? If so can > > you try the same test with plain 2.6.3 please? We'll go from there. > > Actually, it was a Mandrake kernel, 2.6.3-4mdk IIRC. Whatever is > the default with MDK 10. One salient difference with the vendor > kernel is that everything which can be a module is, and I wasn't > using any modules with my kernels. BTW, I was careful to have the > same hdparm settings during the performance testing. > > The performance difference was very repeatable. Using the script > provided by Andy Isaacson, the 2.6.3-4mdk did the clone in about > 11 minutes total, while the various current kernels took about > 15 minutes total. The user times were the same, and the difference > was in system time. Those numbers are from memory, the actual > results should be in the archive. Was this regression only reiserv3 or both v3 and ext3? -chris