From: "John Chatelle" <johnch@medent.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: High read Latency test (Anticipatory I/O scheduler)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:20:22 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040220202023.M9162@medent.com> (raw)
I haven't seen much duplicated results regarding the Robert Love article
in the February 2004 Linux Journal article, also reachable in the hyperlink:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6931
Although the 1st simple test: "Write starved reads" gets results comparable
to the results reported in the Article, Our results for the 2nd test: "High
Read latency" delivers results opposite our expectations...
Kernel 2.6.2 Results: (Anticipatory I/O scheduler).
real 43m41.138s Nearly 44 minutes! 2nd run similar.
user 0m4.715s
sys 0m11.179s
Kernel 2.4.20-28.7p21gsmp Results:
real 0m41.535s Only 42 seconds! 2nd run similar.
user 0m4.720s
sys 0m15.470s
Our dmesg shows wer're running the Anticipatory scheduler when testing under
the 2.6.2 kernel.
The 2 shell scripts, StreamingRead.sh and WHR.sh (bash, actually), implement
the test:
#StreamingRead.sh --simple 4 line shell script:
while true
do
cat ../data/oneGBfile >/dev/null
done
#WHR.sh -- simple 2 (or 3) line shell script.
StreamingRead.sh &
time find /usr/src/linux-2.4.20-18.7 -type f -exec cat \
'{}' ';' > /dev/null
I'm reading a 1G binary garbage file repeatedly while timing
the transversal and reading of the 2.4 Kernel source tree, just as the test
2 example shows in the article. I would think I/O anticipating the 1G
garbage file would be likely, where the I/O anticipation of the reading of
the source tree under the 'find' command would be far choppier and more
difficult.The 'time' command, however measures the less anticipatory and
choppier reads of the 'find' command! I therefore see the results of table
1 for test 2 to be very counter intuitive!
Has anyone else seen such divergent results compared to those reported in
the article? Does anyone else see the same results with the anticipatory
I/O scheduler?
John Chatelle
johnch@medent.com
Community Computer Service
15 Hulbert Street - P.O. Box 980
Auburn, New York 13021
Phone: (315)-255-1751
Fax: (315)-255-3539
--
This message and any attachments may contain information that is protected
by law as privileged and confidential, and is transmitted for the sole use
of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying or retention of
this e-mail or the information contained herein is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the
sender by e-mail, and permanently delete this e-mail.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner.
next reply other threads:[~2004-02-20 20:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-20 20:20 John Chatelle [this message]
2004-02-20 21:29 ` High read Latency test (Anticipatory I/O scheduler) Dave Olien
2004-02-20 22:40 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-21 1:22 ` Andrew Morton
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=20040220202023.M9162@medent.com \
--to=johnch@medent.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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