From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262439AbTFJJG0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2003 05:06:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262482AbTFJJG0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2003 05:06:26 -0400 Received: from [217.222.53.238] ([217.222.53.238]:53252 "EHLO mail.gts.it") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262439AbTFJJGY (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2003 05:06:24 -0400 Message-ID: <3EE5A2C3.1060303@gts.it> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:20:03 +0200 From: Stefano Rivoir User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: IDE performances, 2.4 vs 2.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Noting that 2.5 is much slower than 2.4 on disk operations (you *touch* it when you have not-so-fast machine and use KDE, for example), I've written a silly test that fwrite/fread a single 100Mb file, char by char, and timing it I have results that I can't understand very well. Of course, same machine, same hdparm settings, same processes running (none, it's a notebook without server processes). I've run these test several time, the results are always more or less the same (ext2): 2.4.19 read: real 0m15.822s user 0m15.180s sys 0m0.270s write: real 0m12.524s user 0m11.800s sys 0m0.690s 2.5.70 (up to -bk14, and -mm6) read: real 0m20.790s user 0m14.372s sys 0m0.949s write: real 0m13.148s user 0m11.901s sys 0m0.665 Writing does not drop, but reading has a 6 seconds difference between user+sys and real that I can't figure out. And the total difference is "huge". Actually, using anything that touches the disk (it can be a trivial "aptitude" loading the cache, or a complex KDE) slows down. I've run these tests on a HP Omnibook w/Celeron, but I have the same slow down on a Athlon K7. Is it anyway "normal", something I should expect upgrading from 2.4 to 2.5/2.6? Or there should be something I should check more accurately? Bye all. -- Stefano RIVOIR