From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:16:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:16:43 -0400 Received: from roc-24-95-218-9.rochester.rr.com ([24.95.218.9]:52873 "EHLO roc-24-169-102-121.rochester.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:16:32 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:24:44 -0400 From: Chris Mason To: "HABBINGA,ERIK (HP-Loveland,ex1)" , "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" Subject: re: Performance 2.4.8 is worse than 2.4.x<8 (SPEC NFS results sho w this) Message-ID: <22920000.997799084@tiny> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.8 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday, August 13, 2001 09:40:59 AM -0700 "HABBINGA,ERIK (HP-Loveland,ex1)" wrote: > Here are some SPEC SFS NFS testing (http://www.spec.org/osg/sfs97) results > I've been doing over the past few weeks that shows NFS performance > degrading since the 2.4.5pre1 kernel. I've kept the hardware constant, > only changing the kernel. Did the 2.4.5pre1 have the transaction tracking patch? -chris