From: Michael Frank <mhf@linuxmail.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Jon Burgess <lkml@jburgess.uklinux.net>
Cc: linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interleaved writes
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:02:39 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200402120502.39300.mhf@linuxmail.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0402111528140.23220-100000@chimarrao.boston.redhat.com>
On Thursday 12 February 2004 04:28, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Jon Burgess wrote:
>
> > Write speed in MB/s using an ext2 filesystem for 1 and 2 streams:
> > Num streams: 1 2
> > linux-2.4.22 10.47 6.98
> > linux-2.6.2 9.71 0.34
>
> > During the disk light is on solid and it really slows any other disk
> > access. It looks like the disk is continuously seeking backwards and
> > forwards, perhaps re-writing the meta data.
>
> Just for fun, could you also try measuring how long it takes
> to read back the files in question ?
>
> Both individually and in parallel...
>
2.4 has a deadline scheduler. 2.6 default is anticipatory.
Could you please boot with scheduler=deadline to compare apples with apples.
Regards
Michael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-11 20:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-11 19:04 ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interleaved writes Jon Burgess
2004-02-11 20:28 ` Rik van Riel
2004-02-11 21:02 ` Michael Frank [this message]
2004-02-11 21:18 ` Diego Calleja
2004-02-12 2:00 ` Dave Olien
2004-02-12 2:23 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-02-12 9:42 ` ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interl Giuliano Pochini
2004-02-12 10:15 ` John Bradford
2004-02-12 10:27 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-12 17:05 ` Michael Frank
2004-02-12 17:18 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2004-02-12 20:55 ` Helge Hafting
2004-02-13 1:57 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-02-13 2:05 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-12 14:59 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-02-13 12:15 ` ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interleaved writes Jon Burgess
2004-02-12 10:40 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-12 20:17 ` Hans Reiser
2004-02-12 9:56 ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-12 20:20 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-13 8:28 ` Juan Piernas Canovas
2004-02-16 17:51 ` Alex Zarochentsev
2004-02-16 20:03 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-13 12:35 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-14 15:00 ` Jon Burgess
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200402120502.39300.mhf@linuxmail.org \
--to=mhf@linuxmail.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkml@jburgess.uklinux.net \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox