Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44

[Gene Heskett]

On Sunday 22 April 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 02:17:02PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> CFS-v4 is quite smooth in terms of the users experience but after
>> prolonged observations approaching 24 hours, it appears to choke the cpu
>> hog off a bit even when the system has nothing else to do.  My amanda runs
>> went from 1 to 1.5 hours depending on how much time it took gzip to handle
>> the amount of data tar handed it, up to about 165m & change, or nearly 3
>> hours pretty consistently over 5 runs.
>
>Welcome to infinite history. I'm not surprised, apart from the time
>scale of anomalies being much larger than I anticipated.

[...]

>Pardon my saying so but you appear to be describing anomalous behavior
>in terms of "scheduler warmups."

Well, that was what I saw, it took gzip about 4 or 5 minutes to get to the 
first 90% hit in htop's display, and it first hit the top of the display with 
only 5%.  And the next backup run took about 2h:21m, so we're back in the 
ballpark.  I'd reset amanda's schedule for a faster dumpcycle too, along with 
giving the old girl a new drive, all about the time we started playing with 
this, so the times I'm recording now may well be nominal.  I suppose I should 
boot a plain 2.6.21-rc7 and make a run & time that, but I don't enjoy 
masochism THAT much. :)

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
I've enjoyed just about as much of this as I can stand.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/