Re: Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21

Nick Piggin
2003-08-06T00:56:02Z

Peter Chubb wrote:

>>>>>>"Andrew" == Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> writes:
>>>>>>
>
>Andrew> Martin Konold <martin.konold@erfrakon.de> wrote:
>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>when using 2.6.0.test1 on a high end laptop (P-IV 2.2 GHz, 1GB RAM)
>>>I notice very significant slowdown in interactive usage compared to
>>>2.4.21.
>>>
>>>The difference is most easily seen when switching folders in
>>>kmail. While 2.4.21 is instantaneous 2.6.0.test1 shows the clock
>>>for about 2-3 seconds.
>>>
>>>
>
>I see the same problem, and I'm using XFS. Booting with
>elevator=deadline fixed it for me. The anticipatory scheduler hurts
>if you have a disc optimised for low power consumption, not speed.
>
>

I don't think this generalisation is really fair. All hard disks
have the same basic properties which AS exploits. There seems to
be something going wrong though.