From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261780AbUB0KoM (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2004 05:44:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261754AbUB0KoM (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2004 05:44:12 -0500 Received: from smtp.virgilio.it ([212.216.176.142]:26256 "EHLO vsmtp2alice.tin.it") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261780AbUB0KoJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2004 05:44:09 -0500 Message-ID: <403F1F5E.9000704@futuretg.com> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:43:42 +0100 From: "Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040217 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, it MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: markw@osdl.org, Carl Johnson , Hans Reiser , reiserfs-list@namesys.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: AS performance with reiser4 on 2.6.3 References: <200402261748.i1QHmJE12429@mail.osdl.org> <16446.13520.5837.193556@laputa.namesys.com> <403EBB87.2070504@namesys.com> In-Reply-To: <403EBB87.2070504@namesys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dear Mark, I appreciate the OSDL efforts and graphs you offer for ReiserFS 4, but I will appreciate a lot more if you adopt a distro that adopt ReiserFS like: SuSE, Lindows or our FTOSX. For us ReiserFS is important for RedHat really don't. So, I don't want to see again the RedHat 9, name here: http://developer.osdl.org/markw/fs/dbt2_stp_results.html Thanks very much, Giovanni > Nikita Danilov wrote: > >> markw@osdl.org writes: >> > Hi Nick, >> > > I started getting some results with dbt-2 on 2.6.3 and saw that >> reiser4 >> > is doing a bit worse with the AS elevator. Although reiser4 wasn't >> > doing well to begin with, compared to the other filesystems. I have >> > links to the STP results on our 4-ways and 8-ways here: >> > http://developer.osdl.org/markw/fs/dbt2_stp_results.html >> >> There were no changes between 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 that could affect reiser4 >> performance, so it is not clear why numbers are so different. Probably >> results should be averaged over several runs. >> > The differences don't "feel" like testing error, and in any event > something is seriously wrong. That something is either poor fsync > performance, or poor scalability. In any event, please investigate, > and please try such things as using capture on copy. Mark, does this > benchmark like to use fsync? > > Thanks much mark for bringing this to our attention. > >> Also can you run test with >> >> http://www.namesys.com/snapshots/2004.02.25/extra/e_05-proc-sleep.patch >> >> applied? To use it turn CONFIG_PROC_SLEEP on (depends on >> CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER), and do "cat /proc/sleep" before and after test >> run. >> >> > > -- > Mark Wong - - markw@osdl.org >> >> Nikita. >> - >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe >> linux-kernel" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >> >> >> >> > >