On Sun, 21 May 2000, Lawrence Manning wrote:
> That's my observation anyway. I did some dd and bonnie tests
> and got abismal results :-( Machine unusable during dd write
> etc. pre9-2 on the other hand is close to being as smooth as,
> say, 2.3.51. What happened? ;)
OK, I guess this means shrink_mmap() should not wait on
*every* locked buffer it runs into ;)
This will destroy both latency (we end up waiting for a
*lot* of buffers) and throughput (waiting on buffers could
interfere with request sorting if we're unlucky).
> I also should chip in to say that 2.2.15 is abit sick IO wise
> for me too.
I'm working on it :)
regards,
Rik
-- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength.Wanna talk about the kernel? irc.openprojects.net / #kernelnewbies http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 21:00:20 EST