From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:13:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:13:26 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:17674 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:13:25 -0400 Message-ID: <3D12451C.820D3285@zip.com.au> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:11:56 -0700 From: Andrew Morton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.19-pre8 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Gross, Mark" CC: "'Dave Hansen'" , "'Russell Leighton'" , mgross@unix-os.sc.intel.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, "Griffiths, Richard A" Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large References: <59885C5E3098D511AD690002A5072D3C057B49A4@orsmsx111.jf.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "Gross, Mark" wrote: > > ... > The workload is http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ (one of the newer versions > ;) > Please tell me exactly how you're using it: how many filesystems, how many controllers, disk topology, physical memory, size of filesystems, etc. Sufficient for me to be able to reproduce it and find out what is happening. Also: what is your best-case aggregate bandwidth? Platter-speed of disks multiplied by number of disks, please? Thanks to the BKL you've effectively got 1.3 to 1.5 CPUs, but we should be able to saturate six or eight disks on a uniprocessor kernel. It's possible that we're looking at the wrong thing. -