From: Helge Hafting <helgehaf@aitel.hist.no>
To: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@gmail.com>,
Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@aitel.hist.no>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: New readahead - ups and downs new test. Vm oddities.
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 23:42:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060703214217.GA10699@aitel.hist.no> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060703153930.GC5874@mail.ustc.edu.cn>
I have now re-run my tests (parallel debsums and
bzcat+patch) this time with everything on the same device
so as to get competition for io.
New and old readahead didn't make much difference this time
either, so it seems that my idea about readahead
problems were wrong. Which is good, as the new readahead
improves so many other things.
Results with new readahead using one disk device:
Swap went up to 32M, dropped to 244k when testing ended.
patch timing:
real 6m8.451s
user 0m5.183s
sys 0m2.897s
debsums timing:
real 7m42.851s
user 0m21.172s
sys 0m13.642s
Results with old readahead, one disk device:
Swap went to 32M, dropped to 244k when testing ended.
timings:
patch:
real 6m18.191s
user 0m5.226s
sys 0m2.724s
debsums:
real 7m49.860s
user 0m21.243s
sys 0m14.268s
A tiny bit slower, but very little.
No surprise that everyting is slower when using a single
disk instead of two.
The swap difference from using two disks is striking though.
Nothing to do with readahead, but
why 32M swap when using one disk, and 244k swap when using two?
The amount of data processed is the same either way,
is the VM very timing-sensitive?
Helge Hafting
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-07-03 21:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-06-27 13:07 New readahead - ups and downs Helge Hafting
[not found] ` <20060627160624.GB6014@mail.ustc.edu.cn>
2006-06-27 16:06 ` Fengguang Wu
[not found] ` <20060702235516.GA6034@mail.ustc.edu.cn>
2006-07-02 23:55 ` Fengguang Wu
2006-07-03 13:50 ` New readahead - ups and downs new test Helge Hafting
[not found] ` <20060703153930.GC5874@mail.ustc.edu.cn>
2006-07-03 15:39 ` Fengguang Wu
2006-07-03 20:36 ` Helge Hafting
2006-07-03 21:42 ` Helge Hafting [this message]
[not found] ` <20060704012621.GA7236@mail.ustc.edu.cn>
2006-07-04 1:26 ` New readahead - ups and downs new test. Vm oddities Fengguang Wu
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=20060703214217.GA10699@aitel.hist.no \
--to=helgehaf@aitel.hist.no \
--cc=fengguang.wu@gmail.com \
--cc=helge.hafting@aitel.hist.no \
--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