[OT] Re: ide drives performance issues, maybe related with buffer cache.

[OT] Re: ide drives performance issues, maybe related with buffer cache.

[Ihar 'Philips' Filipau]

John Newbie wrote:
> 
>> RTFM , and STOP SPAMMING
> 
> 
> I've read them, see my previous posts. If you have nothing to say, 
> better stay silent.
> Ok, have a look at 2.6-test2, the same picture, slightly faster, though.
> And 2.6 by default set unmaskirq to 1.
> IO is really bursty (see post by insecure) opposite to `enemy I`.
> 

   If you are really newbie in Linux - I can advice you to try FreeBSD.
   By default FreeBSD (as of version 3.2) is much less aggressive in 
caching and buffering. I never saw Linux greedy caching/buffering 
working good - it always has some stupid edge cases when it is 
easier/faster to power-off/power-on/fsck system, rather than to get to 
console and kill offending process.
   But sure - Linux's throughput is much higher that in *BSD.
   Benchmarketing.

Re: [OT] Re: ide drives performance issues, maybe related with buffer cache.

[John Newbie]

>   If you are really newbie in Linux - I can advice you to try FreeBSD.
>   By default FreeBSD (as of version 3.2) is much less aggressive in 
>caching and buffering. I never saw Linux greedy caching/buffering working 
>good - it always has some stupid edge cases when it is easier/faster to 
>power-off/power-on/fsck system, rather than to get to console and kill 
>offending process.
>   But sure - Linux's throughput is much higher that in *BSD.
>   Benchmarketing.
>
1.5+ year of Linux expirience, some app. programming, book by O'Reilly 
Understanding the Linux Kernel,
Linux  core kernel comment., simple module programming.

I do not want to switch to any kind of BSD. But behavior i've noticed 
sometimes is really annoying.

Sorry if you think my posts were spam.

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963